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
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Appropriately vague I see. Involved with charities. So have you worked and interacted with these children on a personal level or not? I wouldn't embarrass yourself further if you haven't.
    I am not normally inclined to reveal all of what I have done in the past or what I am doing now, since essentially I am a private person. However, I have absolutely no reason to feel embarrassed and predictably, it is only you who would suggest that I should be.


    If you knew in your own mind that you were intellectually capable of writing the above post but couldn't because you had absolutely no control over any of your limbs, how would that make you feel?
    I've actually being in that situation when I was a lot younger, (St. Vitus dance) so can tell you how I felt. I was surrounded by people who could do those things for me, and did so without giving me any sense that I was being burdensome to them. They were my facilitators, and to them I feel a sense of gratitude. Now, can you talk about how it feels from experience?

    If you knew you were more than intelligent enough to hold your own in a verbal debate about, say, abortion or anything else for that matter, but you couldn't because you were physically incapable of speech, do you really think it would matter two ****s how nice your carer was?!
    Steven Hawking is physically incapable of speech, yet he manages to communicate in a very intelligent manner. The difference between Steven and the rest of the population who are disabled in this manner is resources!

    Yet again you are so revoltingly patronising it almost hurts me to read it. The way you've so breezily dismissed the everyday challenges facing people whose lives are anything but normal suggests it is in fact you who thinks of people with disabilities as commodities and not real individuals. Clearly you think of them as accessories to a nicely varied society - if there are a load of handicappeds it means you can all practice your tolerance doesn't it? You're not putting yourself in their position at all.
    And yet again, you descend to ad homs in a spectacular manner. The difference between you and me is that I see people with disabilities as real individuals with rights to a meaningful life, free of threat from those who would seek to prevent them having that life in the first place. If society was more prepared in general to accept them unconditionally, we would not even be having this part of the debate now.

    I'll ask you one question. Do you think the congenitally disabled mourn the absence of faculties that they never posessed in the first place? Or is it possibly that you mourn the absence for them?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    (in fact if anyone remembers, I had an abortion at 16 and afterwards felt like it all happened so fast that I regretted it a bit - the product of being too organised!).
    Is this the reason for all your angst?

    I do empathise, really I do since I know only too well that many of those who have had abortions do come to regret it...and sometimes the only way they can live with that regret is to become very aggressive over what they see as their human rights to abort their child, as a form of defence for having done so.

    Incidentally, thanks TML, Lib, Peter and technik for your support. Hoorah for the cavalry!!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Since you believe in an afterlife, do you also believe that painful emotions can be carried over into that life?
    Of course not, your soul or spirit or whatever you want to call it, if in an afterlife situation, knows better than to hold grudges and can look over the past in a completely calm, objective and forgiving way. Even if I was brutally murdered tomorrow, it doesn't make sense to me that I would be looking down on my killer all wrathful and bitter. That sort of thing is an awfully weak, human thing to feel. Surely in death you move on from that kind of thing. I ask you, as a Christian, is that what Jesus would do? [/moral high ground]

    Besides, if you're seeing a soul as that kind of entity (I'm speculating about this kind of thing anyway, I don't have a specific fixed belief, which is why I'm struggling for terminology), I wouldn't credit an embryo as having one yet, no more than a plant.

    I am maybe being a bit too philosophical here, but the pain that is felt by the unborn, whilst not necessarily being a physical pain, is the emotional pain of being rejected and unwanted.
    Oh noes, blob angst! I think that's a very scientologist kind of view. ('Don't have violent sex during pregnancy, the foetus will be offended!' kind of logic).

    I believe in the Celtic version of the post-death experience: Life --> resting period in the 'Summerland' (heaven type place) --> reincarnation.
    If you never lived then you weren't ever incarnated. So this whole discussion is a bit futile.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Is this the reason for all your angst?
    She doesn't have angst.

    I do empathise, really I do since I know only too well that many of those who have had abortions do come to regret it...
    She doesn't regret it.

    and sometimes the only way they can live with that regret is to become very aggressive over what they see as their human rights to abort their child, as a form of defence for having done so.
    This passage reminds me of a scene from the L Word where a Christian fundie declares that she is glad Tina had a miscarriage and suggests that it was God's way of telling her and Bette that lesbians shouldn't raise children. To which she is quite rightly called a monster.

    You are low. Really low.

    Jennybean is not aggressive, she is simply right, and you can't handle it and resort to personal attacks. The last resort of the losing team.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)

    You are low. Really low.
    After reading this, I am inclined to agree.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Jennybean is not aggressive, she is simply right, and you can't handle it and resort to personal attacks. The last resort of the losing team.
    And declaring a personal attack to be the last word in an argument that automatically makes you right is ten times more ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Out of interest, Libertin, do you have any objection to elective abortions before the fetus can be viable? I would have thought a compelling defence can be made that as the fetus (proto-person, unborn child, use semantic as appropriate) cannot survive without continual aid from the womans body (albeit provided unconsciously) the woman can surely opt to withdraw this aid as she sees fit? I mean, it might not be considered wonderfully charitable, but is it really that immoral?
    Offline

    13
    This passage reminds me of a scene from the L Word where a Christian fundie declares that she is glad Tina had a miscarriage and suggests that it was God's way of telling her and Bette that lesbians shouldn't raise children. To which she is quite rightly called a monster.

    You are low. Really low.

    Jennybean is not aggressive, she is simply right, and you can't handle it and resort to personal attacks. The last resort of the losing team.
    wtf did you get all that from my post; a post empathising with someone who has had an abortion and admits that she made her decision in haste and has some regrets over it?

    Jennybean's debate tactics are most certainly aggressive and hostile, as are yours come to that.

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    You are low. Really low.
    And that is not?

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    resort to personal attacks. The last resort of the losing team.
    :rolleyes:



    You both use personal attacks on those who dare to have a different opinion to yours. You 're just not able to keep debate civilised and logical, rather you jump up and down hysterically, using emotional semantics. We all recognise that using these tactics are designed to silence opposition - and that is anathema to all fair-minded people.

    I cannot, and furthermore, will not compromise on what I believe to be very wrong. If I attract the sort of vehemence I have from people like yourselves then so be it - I'm strong enough to take it.

    Abortion kills human life - get over it!

    (And as for Tufts: she has added zilch to the debate apart from one liners saying "I agree with that." :rolleyes:)
    Offline

    13
    Gregory raises a point worthy of debate.

    In my opinion, a woman's wish to withhold her 'consent' to what is happening to her body can only be considered moral if that 'right' does not impinge on the rights of another human being to be allowed to live.

    Not all things done with a person's body are right, nor should they all be legally protected.

    Even those who are pro-abortion must acknowledge that the "right to control one's body" argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being.

    Too often "the right to control my life" becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage.

    Finally, is it not demeaning to a woman's body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and "out of control" condition?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Except that the woman is not impinging on the 'right' of allowing the baby to live, when the fact in the vast majority of abortions is that this fetus would not survive 'on its own'. JJ Thompson uses precisely this distinction in her defence of abortion with her violinist example - whilst the woman is entitled to unhook herself from the obligation, it isn't alright for her to deliberately kill the violinist.

    The strength of this argument is that it works even if personhood is granted. Like the woman hooked up to the violinist, I am not obliged to help someone else to survive for a considerable length of time at cost and risk to myself (as, you'll recall, this other person cannot survive outside of the woman until twenty-one weeks ish.) If I do elect to do so this is obviously a good thing - it is a supererogatory act, if I recall my terms right. If I don't want to do so, it might be considered uncharitable, but I am reasonably sure no one would suggest imposing parallel legal duties on us in our day to day dealings with each other.

    In other words, one still has a right to control ones body when it is being used by someone else (note personhood) and that use is cruicial to their survival - electing to withdraw this support is simply not legally reprehensible, as such an imposition is not something the woman is obliged to take personal responsibility for.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Empathising =/= patronising.

    Yawn, your tone reminds me of ALL sorts of nasty manipulative fictional characters. I can now think of another character from Big Love, who having had an unpleasant childhood in a polygamist society, patronisingly tries to imply that Nicki must have been equally unhappy when actually she was fine thanks.

    You calculate what you say for maximum offensiveness and patronising tone and you know it. It's just rude.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Empathising =/= patronising.

    Yawn, your tone reminds me of ALL sorts of nasty manipulative fictional characters. I can now think of another character from Big Love, who having had an unpleasant childhood in a polygamist society, patronisingly tries to imply that Nicki must have been equally unhappy when actually she was fine thanks.

    You calculate what you say for maximum offensiveness and patronising tone and you know it. It's just rude.
    How dare you make me responsible for what other fictional characters have said or done.


    Unless you have something to actually add to the debate, rather than personal character assassination, I suggest you move along somewhere else.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by GregoryJL)
    Except that the woman is not impinging on the 'right' of allowing the baby to live, when the fact in the vast majority of abortions is that this fetus would not survive 'on its own'. JJ Thompson uses precisely this distinction in her defence of abortion with her violinist example - whilst the woman is entitled to unhook herself from the obligation, it isn't alright for her to deliberately kill the violinist.

    The strength of this argument is that it works even if personhood is granted. Like the woman hooked up to the violinist, I am not obliged to help someone else to survive for a considerable length of time at cost and risk to myself (as, you'll recall, this other person cannot survive outside of the woman until twenty-one weeks ish.) If I do elect to do so this is obviously a good thing - it is a supererogatory act, if I recall my terms right. If I don't want to do so, it might be considered uncharitable, but I am reasonably sure no one would suggest imposing parallel legal duties on us in our day to day dealings with each other.

    In other words, one still has a right to control ones body when it is being used by someone else (note personhood) and that use is cruicial to their survival - electing to withdraw this support is simply not legally reprehensible, as such an imposition is not something the woman is obliged to take personal responsibility for.
    I think that to compare someone hooked up to a violionist with a mother hooked up to her child is somewhat misleading.

    Whilst JJThompson was not responsible for the initial existence of the violinist, the mother is responsible for the existence of her child. As such the relationships are not comparable.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    How dare you make me responsible for what other fictional characters have said or done.
    Unless you have something to actually add to the debate, rather than personal assasination, I suggest you move along somewhere else.
    LOL!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    LOL!
    How strange being that she worships the word of what other fictional characters say...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes: A lot of historians believe that Jesus existed if that's who you were referring to...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    :rolleyes: A lot of historians believe that Jesus existed if that's who you were referring to...
    Not specifically - just the point that a lot of biblical.etc., stories are just that - stories.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Not specifically - just the point that a lot of biblical.etc., stories are just that - stories.
    That's not proven. And I really don't think ridiculing someone's faith in a thread about abortion is that necessary.

    But back to your original statement, which fictional character would you be referring to, if not Jesus, and also how can you prove that he/she is fictional?

    I recognise it was probably just tongue-in-cheek, but it's still rather rude to only reply to Yawn's point with a ridiculing attack on her faith rather than her view on abortion. It's just seems a tad immature, 'tis all.

    And Zoe, Jenny does have angst - she admitted herself that she hates pro-lifers and to accuse Yawn of being "low" [when really it is not her whose making the personal remarks] strikes me as double-standards. That's merely my observation. Take it or leave it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's not proven the other way, which is sufficient if you believe you should base your beliefs on what can be verified, which most logical individuals do.

    Also - in a discussion on abortion if someone is using their faith to verify their position then attacking that is perfectly justifiable.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's not proven the other way, which is sufficient if you believe you should base your beliefs on what can be verified, which most logical individuals do.
    There is no proof either way, so beliefs are based on evidence.
    Also - in a discussion on abortion if someone is using their faith to verify their position then attacking that is perfectly justifiable.
    A lot of what Yawn is saying applies to human morality/ethics - not religious beliefs. In fact, a lot of what Yawn posts has been articles by various scientists within the medical profession.
 
 
 
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.