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

    18
    (Original post by TML)
    That is, nevertheless, below the 24 week limit.


    It has also been said that the foetus can feel pain at 12 weeks. And when you see a picture of a 20 week old foetus then perhaps you may change your mind. As I keep saying, there's no objective stance. Where the line is drawn is purely subjective.
    it is below the 24 week limit. and hecne why i say it should be reduced to 20 weeks.

    but 22+5 and 21+6 are both a far cry still from 20 weeks.


    It has been said that if you see a penny and pick it up then all that day you'll have good luck. Thats why i take little interest in what 'has been said'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    -and particularly in retaliation.
    Enough of this, if you want to discuss rep issues, do so somewhere else, or report me to a mod, I could truly give a ****, to be honest.

    We'll continue this debate if/when you choose to answer my other post.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Enough of this, if you want to discuss rep issues, do so somewhere else, or report me to a mod, I could truly give a ****, to be honest.
    This was the place to discuss it since you repped me on a post in this thread for no other reason than retribution because of being admonished for inferring another TSR member was feeble-minded...not even a disagreement with that post...which was addressed to Jamie re 'BSc Parisitiology...

    (Original post by yawn)
    In the context of tropical medicine or zoology maybe, not in any application of the term to obstetrics.
    We'll continue this debate if/when you choose to answer my other post.
    I cannot answer any other of your questions until you can defend the killing of human life...this comes first...and since you have refused to debate the crux, you obviously don't want to continue debating...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    This was the place to discuss it since you repped me on a post in this thread for no other reason than retribution because of being admonished for inferring another TSR member was feeble-minded...not even a disagreement with that post...which was addressed to Jamie re 'BSc Parisitiology...
    Unfortunately, I couldn't rep you for your other post, because it got deleted before I could read it.

    I cannot answer any other of your questions until you can defend the killing of human life...this comes first...and since you have refused to debate the crux, you obviously don't want to continue debating...
    Don't get me wrong, I don't like abortion. But as I've pointed out, you've commited a naturalistic fallacy; abortion ends human life, ergo abortion is wrong. As I've pointed out before, that's too big of a step. Even Aquinas argued that just because a fetus is "alive", doesn't mean it has rights. Even Aquinas agreed with me.

    Now would you be so kind to answer my other points?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    it is below the 24 week limit. and hecne why i say it should be reduced to 20 weeks.
    Well that was precisely the point I was driving at.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Even Aquinas argued that just because a fetus is "alive", doesn't mean it has rights. Even Aquinas agreed with me.
    Aquinas was a pro-choicer? :eek:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Depends what you mean; he was against the abortion of people; he didn't believe a life was a person until they had acquired a soul; until it does, abortion was fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On that aside, I think it was Augustine who suggested babies were ensouled at around 40 days for boys, and a bit later for girls.

    On another aside: It is also worth noting that these very premature children (22 weeks, etc.) tend not to live very long, and often suffer from considerable physical and mental difficulties. Predicating personhood (or at least moral worth) on viability is quite strange though - we tend not to regard personhood as a function of the advancement of medical science.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, well another way is, sustained electrical activity in the brain only occurs after 20-24 weeks of gestation. Without electrical activity in the brain a person isn't considered medically 'alive', so from that perspective a foetus isn't a 'medically live human' until after that. This is from this website http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
    which addresses the hoax that electrical activity can be observed earlier, pointing out those claims uses sources dating from the 60s and has been shown to disproved.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    you shouldn't really make that sweeping statement then. i agree, except i would add rape to that list.

    edit: sorry i looked at the poll wording after i quoted you and i realize that you were just following the poll wording. my bad
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Don't get me wrong, I don't like abortion. But as I've pointed out, you've commited a naturalistic fallacy; abortion ends human life, ergo abortion is wrong. As I've pointed out before, that's too big of a step. Even Aquinas argued that just because a fetus is "alive", doesn't mean it has rights. Even Aquinas agreed with me.
    Aquinas agreed with you? Don't you mean that you agree with Aquinas since he lived some time before you existed?

    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    he was against the abortion of people; he didn't believe a life was a person until they had acquired a soul; until it does, abortion was fine.
    Wrong, FIMN!

    Notwithstanding his belief in delayed animation and ensoulment, Aquinas still taught that abortion was wrong from the moment of conception. He believed it to be a mortal sin expressive of a homicidal will, even if in the early stages of pregnancy, as he thought, homicide isn't actually committed.

    Aquinas's opposition, then, squares perfectly with the Church's teaching, even if there's a difference between why Aquinas thought abortion was wrong and why Catholic theologians and moralists today think it is.

    Why did Aquinas believe ensoulment happened some time after conception? Because he accepted the science of his day, which taught the theory of the spontaneous generation of life (the idea that life spontaneously arises from non-living matter).

    As applied to human reproduction, this theory suggested the (apparently) non-living elements contributed by each parent--"foetal matter" in the case of the mother and seminal fluid in the case of the father--were transformed from non-living matter successively into vegetative, animal, and finally human life.

    Each of these stages was thought to come about by the infusion of a soul: vegetative life by the infusion of a vegetative soul, animal life by the infusion of an animal soul, and human life by the infusion of a human soul.

    Since, according to Aquinas, the soul is the form of the body--that which gives life and makes an organism the kind of creature it is--if an organism possesses distinctively human qualities, we can concluded it possesses a human soul.

    Because early scientists observed nothing distinctively human at primitive stages of human development (they knew nothing of genetics and possessed no microscopes), it was concluded no human soul was present.

    Modern biology has shown the conceptus does have distinctively human traits. It is living and possesses a human genetic code to guide its growth and development. If Aquinas had had the benefits of this knowledge, his principles would have led him to conclude ensoulment occurs at conception.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Aquinas was a pro-choicer? :eek:
    No, he wasn't, Lib. FIMN got that wrong, as you can see from my previous post.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn)
    Modern biology has shown the conceptus does have distinctively human traits. It is living and possesses a human genetic code to guide its growth and development.
    If a genetic code is all that's needed to possess a soul, then everything from a fetus to a sunflower seed would have one. Not good enough to give a fetus rights, nowhere near.

    Do you mind?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Being pro-abortion means that one is unimaginative when it comes to solutions to unwanted pregnancies.
    There's not much scope for imagination with unwanted pregnancies - you either give birth or you don't, those are the two options. There's no in between!

    In the case of pro-abortion,
    There's no such thing as 'pro-abortion'. Although I have a friend who jokingly claims to be and states that her opinion is that all pregancies should be aborted, lol.

    Until you can debate the value that pro-abortionists place on an unborn life (remember it is as human a life as a born life) in a reasoned manner, I shall ignore this irrational ad hominem outburst.
    NO, It is NOT. To say so is unreasonable. (Yes, it is human as opposed to alien/cat/penguin, but it is not human as in it qualifies for human rights that *actual* human living people have).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    There's not much scope for imagination with unwanted pregnancies - you either give birth or you don't, those are the two options. There's no in between!
    Of course there is...otherwise initially unwanted pregnancies would not go to full term


    There's no such thing as 'pro-abortion'. Although I have a friend who jokingly claims to be and states that her opinion is that all pregancies should be aborted, lol.
    Everyone who supported abortion was originally referred to as 'pro-abortion', until the description took on unpleasant connotations; hence the renaming of 'pro-choice'.


    NO, It is NOT. To say so is unreasonable. (Yes, it is human as opposed to alien/cat/penguin, but it is not human as in it qualifies for human rights that *actual* human living people have).
    The conceptus is a human life. Whether that life now qualifies for human rights has become dependent on whether that life is wanted by her mother.

    The unborn baby has human rights if he/she is killed as a result of a fatal attack/injury on the mother. Seems a contradiction, doesn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    It is irrelevant what you or I believe...the scientific fact is, that from the moment of conception, a human life exists.

    You must have missed my link that I posted on #236, so for your benefit I reproduce some of the scientific observations of embryologists to confirm the above fact:

    These references are taken from the website of Princeton University
    The references you use as examples are old. The most recent being from 11 years ago. It is not scientific fact, it is what some scientists believe, but not all. Therefore NOT fact.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Of course there is... otherwise initially unwanted pregnancies would not go to full term
    Guilting suggestible girls into thinking that having a baby is a good idea is not a 'solution'.

    Everyone who supported abortion was originally referred to as 'pro-abortion', until the description took on unpleasant connotations; hence the renaming of 'pro-choice'.
    It's not unpleasant it's just innaccurate. Aren't you the one with the massive problem with the use of incorrect terms in an attempt to discredit the other team in this thread?

    The conceptus is a human life. Whether that life now qualifies for human rights has become dependent on whether that life is wanted by her mother.
    IT doesn't qualify. However, if it is wanted, then by association it is covered by the mother's rights to have a child. Like a sort of 3rd party insurance arrangement. The foetus has something a bit like rights, in the sense that if something happened to it without the mother's permission it would be infringing HER rights.

    The unborn baby has human rights if he/she is killed as a result of a fatal attack/injury on the mother. Seems a contradiction, doesn't it?
    See above.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dont know if this has been said before but a woman can not just have an abortion because she does not want the baby, Brook advisory explains...
    pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a child. If a woman thinks she is pregnant but hasn't had a pregnancy test done, she needs to do so as soon as possible.

    What is a legal abortion?
    In England, Wales and Scotland abortion is legal under 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors agree that it is necessary for one of the following reasons:

    having the baby would harm the woman's mental or physical health more than having the abortion. This involves the woman explaining how she feels about the pregnancy to a doctor.


    having the baby would harm the mental or physical health of any children she already has.
    An abortion is also legal at any time in pregnancy if two doctors agree that:

    the abortion is necessary to save the woman's life or prevent serious permanent harm to her mental or physical health, or


    there is a high risk that the baby would be seriously handicapped.
    Note that the stage of pregnancy is calculated from the first day of the woman's last period. Note also that different laws apply outside England, Wales and Scotland.

    So I dont think life style choices fall into any of these categories. I know two friends at Uni with long term boyfriends who have had abortions, felt sad but think its silly how foolish they could of been. Just one of them things though.
    Offline

    18
    "Modern biology has shown the conceptus does have distinctively human traits."

    You. What?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you contend that Pro-Choice should be called Pro-Abortion, then I take issue with the label, Pro-Life. 'Life' bringing with it all those moral connotations and associations. Since you are disregarding the mothers' 'life' if you take the more general definition that isn't the biological heart beating/breathing. And it's assuming a foetus does constitute a live human being, which is a debatabe point.

    How about, anti-abortionists, Pro-Pregnancy (alliteration there too), Anti-Choice, Pregnancy-imposers, Anti-Alternatives.

    And I really find the critique of Pro-Choicer's offering no alternatives in the argument funny.

    Pro-Life stance.
    Choices
    1) Give Birth

    Pro Choice
    Choices
    1) Give Birth
    2) Don't Give Birth.


    As you can see, the Pro-Choice camp has double the options available for mother. It's called the 'choice' camp for a reason.
 
 
 
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.