Turn on thread page Beta

Abortion watch

  • 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%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dream_Catcher)
    Men do it why can't women do it?
    The tone and structure of your original post suggested that you had a problem with women 'putting it out there'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, lol each to thier own to be honest if they happy isn't that what counts.

    Thought it was a revelant factor in my post, It's known that both men and women do it. Just for some reason for men it's more acceptable
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dream_Catcher)
    No, lol each to thier own to be honest if they happy isn't that what counts.

    Thought it was a revelant factor in my post, It's known that both men and women do it. Just for some reason for men it's more acceptable
    Thankfully, social attitudes are changing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    Thankfully, social attitudes are changing.
    It's about time! Glad to see women are finally starting to make thier footprints.

    On topic: My post was mainly what I would do if in that situation not what is right as different people handle things differently.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Women dont take into consideration the mans feelings either sometimes.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Yes, NEED. Women have a right not to let an accident totally **** up their lives.
    Why? They took a risk, they should live with the consequences. And I don't think anti-abortion is necessarily anti-choice. I don't think women should not have a choice about whether they get pregnant. I simply think that that choice comes at the point before conception and not later.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    OMG, look what the cat dragged back in after all this time :rolleyes:
    Involuntary abstinance is no way to live. People have a right to have as much safe sex as they like. It's not their fault if accidents happen.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    OMG, look what the cat dragged back in after all this time :rolleyes:
    Involuntary abstinance is no way to live. People have a right to have as much safe sex as they like. It's not their fault if accidents happen.
    OMG look what the cat spat out after about ten seconds. Sex, even safe sex, is a risk. Just like driving a car or getting on a jet ski or investing in the stock market. People who engage in those activities should have to take the consequences
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    OMG look what the cat spat out after about ten seconds. Sex, even safe sex, is a risk. Just like driving a car or getting on a jet ski or investing in the stock market. People who engage in those activities should have to take the consequences
    Do you approve of loans?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Do you approve of loans?
    Yes. Why?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    Yes. Why?
    Hence, by your justification, you agree with people making the potential risk of something happening with respect to money but not sex - by taking out a loan you are risking defaulting and hence the obvious negative outcome. This is why banks are cautious about who they lend money to.

    In a similar vein, if there wasn't the option to have an abortion, people are happier to take the risk of having sex, hence your support of one form of risk-taking not the other is illogical, especially since that's what your little lecture orientated around.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Hence, by your justification, you agree with people making the potential risk of something happening with respect to money but not sex - by taking out a loan you are risking defaulting and hence the obvious negative outcome. This is why banks are cautious about who they lend money to.

    In a similar vein, if there wasn't the option to have an abortion, people are happier to take the risk of having sex, hence your support of one form of risk-taking not the other is illogical, especially since that's what your little lecture orientated around.
    Um, the quoted person never at any time said risk-taking was negative. The point was made that with risks come consequences.

    If you disagree with her point (regardless of whether or not it is applied or applicable to the wider question here) then, to use your analogy, you are effectively condoning risks without consequences: ie, mortgages where, if you default, you don't have to lose your house or pay your debts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Um, the quoted person never at any time said risk-taking was negative. The point was made that with risks come consequences.

    If you disagree with her point (regardless of whether or not it is applied or applicable to the wider question here) then, to use your analogy, you are effectively condoning risks without consequences: ie, mortgages where, if you default, you don't have to lose your house or pay your debts.
    No - you're basing your decisions on the mitigating factors available to you, with your choices being changed dependant upon what the risks were, clearly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn)
    "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientif writings."
    Yawn, can I ask where you obtained this quotation? Because you are absolutely, categorically wrong about this. The thing scientists agree on is that implantation marks the beginning of the life of a human being. Following conception, and for between five and seven days following that (depending on species), the zygote is just a bunch of cells and this is agreed on by scientists. It cannot be defined as an individual human being because it has the potential to be any (reasonable) number of human beings, should it happen to divide. In addition, some of the cells present in the zygote before implantation will not go on to form part of the embryo. The zygote is initially composed of two layers: the trophoblast layer and the inner cell mass. Trophoblasts help the adherence of the zygote to the uterine wall, so do not form any embryonic tissue, and ICM will also differentiate into two separate layers, the epiblast and the hypoblast, of which the hypoblast will not form any embryonic tissue either - it forms the placenta. Post-implantation, all the cells of the zygote will go on to form one individual human being but before that they are not all destined to become a human being. I know that obviously that's not going to change your mind about abortion or whatever but I felt you had to be picked up on that and please refrain from throwing around statements supposedly backed up by science unless you know you're right.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    OMG look what the cat spat out after about ten seconds. Sex, even safe sex, is a risk. Just like driving a car or getting on a jet ski or investing in the stock market. People who engage in those activities should have to take the consequences
    So if you got in a car and drove as safely as possible but for a reason beyond your control you had an accident, would you expect to lie dying in the road with other motorists driving past and ignoring you and think "Well, I shouldn't expect an ambulance to come and help me sort out the consequences of my actions here, because I took a risk so I deserve to suffer the worst possible effects of whatever has gone wrong"? Don't be so bloody stupid.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Hence, by your justification, you agree with people making the potential risk of something happening with respect to money but not sex - by taking out a loan you are risking defaulting and hence the obvious negative outcome. This is why banks are cautious about who they lend money to.

    In a similar vein, if there wasn't the option to have an abortion, people are happier to take the risk of having sex, hence your support of one form of risk-taking not the other is illogical, especially since that's what your little lecture orientated around.
    I don't have a problem with them taking the risk. I have a problem with them using murder to escape the consequences.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    So if you got in a car and drove as safely as possible but for a reason beyond your control you had an accident, would you expect to lie dying in the road with other motorists driving past and ignoring you and think "Well, I shouldn't expect an ambulance to come and help me sort out the consequences of my actions here, because I took a risk so I deserve to suffer the worst possible effects of whatever has gone wrong"? Don't be so bloody stupid.
    If you are already dead, there is nothing they can do for you. I see the creation of a life as the point of no return just as much as the end of a life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    If you are already dead, there is nothing they can do for you. I see the creation of a life as the point of no return just as much as the end of a life.
    That does not answer my question one iota so I think you've realised what a silly thing it was to say in the first place ;yes;
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allymcb2)
    I don't have a problem with them taking the risk. I have a problem with them using murder to escape the consequences.
    Hence it has nothing to do with risk, as you were attempting to veil your point, just your strongly held opinions? It has nothing to do with the consequences of your actions before, you're just using bravado to mask a realistically outdated concept.

    Why do you believe it's murder when it is clearly, infact, genocide?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the limit is fine as it is, that's 6 months or thereabouts for a woman to realize she's pregnant and take the action she desires.

    I do think however that things should be made more relaxed for mothers, such as being able to get an abortion straight away purely cos they want to , not only if they tick all the right boxes.

    I also don't understand people who argue "illegal unless product of rape/incest", its kind of a contradiction of the argument all human life is precious.

    There are some horrible stories I've read about women being refused an abortion by doctors, I can't imagine how horribly desperate that would make me feel.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
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.