The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 360
bikerx23
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 It has nothing to do with the consequences of your actions before, you're just using bravado to mask a realistically outdated concept.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?


My argument that is that when people take a risk they have to take responsibility for a negative outcome.

I would have thought that it was tacit that every person who is anti-abortion believes that life begins at conception. I don't see any better argument for saying that life should begin at birth.
Reply 361
Jennybean
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;


Oh for ****s sake. No. I don't think taking a risk on driving means you don't deserve hospital treatment. Similarly, I don't oppose treatment for STIs. However, I do not see a baby as something that is 'treatable' because abortion is murder, and therefore an unacceptable way of avoiding the outcome of having a baby. Get it yet?
Reply 362
allymcb2
My argument that is that when people take a risk they have to take responsibility for a negative outcome.

I would have thought that it was tacit that every person who is anti-abortion believes that life begins at conception. I don't see any better argument for saying that life should begin at birth.

And they do take responsibility for that negative outcome by having an abortion - after doing so, they are no longer responsible for it. Simple.
Reply 363
Jennybean
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;


Oh for ****s sake. No. I don't think taking a risk on driving means you don't deserve hospital treatment. Similarly, I don't oppose treatment for STIs. However, I do not see a baby as something that is 'treatable' because abortion is murder, and therefore an unacceptable way of avoiding the outcome of having a baby. Get it yet?

My point was that they do have some choice, because they have the choice to not take the risk at all, and they have many choices about the level of risk e.g. using the Pill and a cap and a condom. Or getting sterilised etc.
Reply 364
bikerx23
And they do take responsibility for that negative outcome by having an abortion - after doing so, they are no longer responsible for it. Simple.


In the same way people pay the dues for their crimes by moving to Cuba. Murder is not the discharge of your obligations sir.
allymcb2
Oh for ****s sake. No. I don't think taking a risk on driving means you don't deserve hospital treatment. Similarly, I don't oppose treatment for STIs. However, I do not see a baby as something that is 'treatable' because abortion is murder, and therefore an unacceptable way of avoiding the outcome of having a baby. Get it yet?


No one wants an STI yet sometimes people get them. Some women do not want children, yet sometimes they become pregnant. You condone the treatment of someone who wants to be rid, or at least treat, STI's, but not a woman who wants to "treat" her "situation" by having an abortion. I understand and agree you are entitled to your opinion, but I find you rather rude and as if you completely attack everyone who disagrees with you because you do not like what they are putting to you. Abortion is not murder. As long as it is not used as a form of contraception then a woman is entirely entitled to have an abortion, in my opinion. It is therefore not unacceptable, and if it were it would still be against the law.
Reply 366
allymcb2
In the same way people pay the dues for their crimes by moving to Cuba. Murder is not the discharge of your obligations sir.

In your opinion, but not that of the state, which is where your analogy falls down.
Reply 367
bikerx23
In your opinion, but not that of the state, which is where your analogy falls down.


The subject of the debate is what ought to be, not what is.
Reply 368
the_amazing_me
No one wants an STI yet sometimes people get them. Some women do not want children, yet sometimes they become pregnant. You condone the treatment of someone who wants to be rid, or at least treat, STI's, but not a woman who wants to "treat" her "situation" by having an abortion. I understand and agree you are entitled to your opinion, but I find you rather rude and as if you completely attack everyone who disagrees with you because you do not like what they are putting to you. Abortion is not murder. As long as it is not used as a form of contraception then a woman is entirely entitled to have an abortion, in my opinion. It is therefore not unacceptable, and if it were it would still be against the law.


The law is irrelevant. We are discussing what ought to be the law. We are discussing morality, not legality. Abortion is the killing of an innocent person. That should not be acceptable. The treatment of STIs does not kill an individual.
Reply 369
allymcb2
The subject of the debate is what ought to be, not what is.

How true - and the thread does not agree with you on this one, hence your absolutist statements of how your world would work fortunately do not look likely to be enacted as long as those asked are relatively representative - last time I looked 5.3% of the population were not those whose opinions were used to make policy. shame.
We are discussing if the law should be altered and I believe the law to be fine and so not what ought to be law. Is it morally acceptable to force a woman into a pregnany she does not wish to continue with, whether adoption is an option or not? A pregnancy that could have problems? Forcing a woman to go through labour? I think practicalities need to be looked at.

Abortion is not the killing of an innocent person and is acceptable. Let's stop going round in circles.
Reply 371
bikerx23
How true - and the thread does not agree with you on this one, hence your absolutist statements of how your world would work fortunately do not look likely to be enacted as long as those asked are relatively representative - last time I looked 5.3% of the population were not those whose opinions were used to make policy. shame.


What percentage of the population sits in the House of Commons? And what percentage in the Lords?

Abortion or not has never been a decider issue for any party winning or losing an election so it could easily be a policy of one of them at some point.

Furthermore this poll is not statistically representative of the population, and is particularly underrepresentative of the conservative population.

And again...you have not made any better argument than I to support your view. We are not discussing the likely political outcome, we are discussing a moral issue.
Reply 372
Well - it all depends on your interpretation and morality.

If you're foolish enough to derive your doctrine from some outdated dogma then it's really not worth debating the issue since your opinion isn't derived from rational thought.
Reply 373
A foetus is a life. It is genetically human, it has the potential for an independant life and for independant thought. The destruction of that is an end to that life, and is therefore a killing. To argue that mere potential is insufficient to be human is to argue that as a child fulfills its potential little by little its worth increases such that a 5 year old is worth more than a 3 year old. This is a nonsensical argument. Humans are only potential until they die.

Adults can be physically dependant on machines, and on others. They can completely without thought in a coma, so drawing the line at sentience would mean that these individuals also had no right to life.

The most logical conclusion is that a life begins at conception, and therefore a right to life begins at conception.
Reply 374
Jennybean
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.


Perhaps, just perhaps it is you who is wrong, Jennybean. You can use whatever language you choose to support your contention, but more eminent experts than either you or I say that human life begins at the moment of conception.

Please don't admonish me as one would a child by telling me to "refrain from throwing around statements supposedly backed up by science...."

For the benefit of all members involved in this debate:

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins."2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson's study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths."4

In his film, "The Silent Scream," Nathanson later stated, "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill," summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8


Footnotes:

1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.

3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.

4Bernard N. Nathanson, "Deeper into Abortion," New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.

5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.

8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
Reply 375
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.


Spot on!

And hence the reason why the only time that abortion should be carried out is if the mother is in mortal danger because of the continuation of the pregnancy, for example in 'early gestation' pre-eclamptic toxaemia. Pre-eclampsia can occur at any stage during the second half of pregnancy. Approximately 10% of pregnant mothers can develop pre-eclampsia and of those, 10% can be severe enough to represent a serious threat to the life of both baby and mother. Worldwide, about 50,000 mothers die each year from eclampsia.

The choice has to be in favour of the mother, whose life can be saved against that of the baby, who cannot survive outside of the uterus at that stage of development.

But then, you don't need an abortion law to make that decision anyway.
Reply 376
If you're foolish enough to derive your doctrine from some outdated dogma then it's really not worth debating the issue since your opinion isn't derived from rational thought.


You cannot make such assertions without expecting the counter assertion that your doctrine is derived from the 'moral relativism' dogma.

The point is that abortion kills human life - and some seem to overlook that 'rational thought'.
Reply 377
I'll request again (for the umpteenth time on this thread) that participants do not resort to sarcasm, denigration or demeaning language to those who hold opposite opinions to their own...but rather, treat everyone with the respect that human dignity demands, whilst trying to debate in a logical manner and minus emotional outbursts.

Thank you. :smile:
Reply 378
allymcb2
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


Having to have an abortion is a pretty nasty consequence. It doesn't sound pleasant. It can affect your future fertility and chances to conceive.
yawn
Perhaps, just perhaps it is you who is wrong, Jennybean. You can use whatever language you choose


Take it that means you couldn't understand a word of it :wink: I would expect nothing less from a Catholic :biggrin:

yawn
Please don't admonish me as one would a child by telling me to "refrain from throwing around statements supposedly backed up by science...."

For the benefit of all members involved in this debate: blablabla Republican propaganda...


So I think, I think...what you will find you meant to say is: "SOME scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of a human life." You will notice that your quotation does not include every notable scientist in the world and therefore you cannot state, as if it is irrefutable, that conception is the beginning of human life and "this is agreed on by science blablabla". It's just not true. In fact, all those big scarey sciencey words I used were quoted indirectly from a piece published in The Times the other week, written by a top embryologist and explaining to Joe Public why Britain's scientists find it acceptable to indulge in stem cell research and how the cut off point for experimentation was reached.

GOD I hate pro-lifers. Warn me :cool:

Latest

Trending

Trending