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.
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#141
Report 11 years ago
#141
(Original post by GregoryJL)
Cancer tumours are also alive. I don't recall many pro-lifers caring about that...

Actually, no, I've got better things to waste my time with than shameless emotive appeals - pragmatically, the law won't get significantly changed any time soon, and so I don't care. It would be nice if the Catholic Church dropped the disingenuous crap about asking for the 'law to be re-examined' instead of what they are actually after (outlawing abortion) any time a few emotive images get out, but I suppose that isn't going to significantly change either.

Interestingly, the BMA (I think) released a clinical report suggesting that foetus' cannot feel pain until after they are born, as they don't develop a personhood until they actually have a body of experience. That might, just possibly, suggest that abortion doesn't actually kill people, but facsimilies thereof. Sadly, for some, distinguishing human being from life in a general is an intellectual bridge to far. Sucks to be them, I guess.
There's no need to be a complete ****, you know...
0
Yarr
Badges: 0
#142
Report 11 years ago
#142
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
What right does a born child have to be cared for? Not a lot. But I think it would be horrendous if we could suggest a parent could simply stop caring for it.



Euthanasia isn't legal on public policy grounds. Not to mention that probably the majority of TSR support euthanasia.
The born child would not be using her body.
Likewise, the born child would only be using her body with her consent (breastfeeding).

The point regarding euthanasia stands; it pinpoints to the fact that we do not have the right over our own existence.
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#143
Report 11 years ago
#143
(Original post by Yarr)
The born child would not be using her body.
Likewise, the born child would only be using her body with her consent (breastfeeding).
It's not consent if she cannot stop doing it legally, which is the condition we put parents in - unless they happen to be able to find someone else to take up the "burden". The distinction between 'using her body' and 'requiring care' seems entirely artificial to me.

The point regarding euthanasia stands; it pinpoints to the fact that we do not have the right over our own existence.
As I've said before on this thread, the laws of England are entirely irrelevant when deciding nationality. The United Kingdom Parliament can no more create or remove human rights than I can; they are simply able to enforce their dictats better than I am.

And I've also said, the prohibition in the UK of euthanasia is not on the basis of life, but rather based on public policy issues which do not present themselves in relation to abortion. It's rather like taking libel laws and stating that 'pinpoints to the fact [?] that we do not have the right over' free speech. It's meaningless.
0
Yarr
Badges: 0
#144
Report 11 years ago
#144
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
It's not consent if she cannot stop doing it legally, which is the condition we put parents in - unless they happen to be able to find someone else to take up the "burden". The distinction between 'using her body' and 'requiring care' seems entirely artificial to me.



As I've said before on this thread, the laws of England are entirely irrelevant when deciding nationality. The United Kingdom Parliament can no more create or remove human rights than I can; they are simply able to enforce their dictats better than I am.

And I've also said, the prohibition in the UK of euthanasia is not on the basis of life, but rather based on public policy issues which do not present themselves in relation to abortion. It's rather like taking libel laws and stating that 'pinpoints to the fact [?] that we do not have the right over' free speech. It's meaningless.
The discussion here isn't what we do with the born child, but with the unborn one. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant. However, I will say that the distinction is a very important one; a pregnancy is not a piece of cake or pie, or whatever you favour. If a baby is born into the world, assuming what I argue for is enforced, it will be there by consent. As such, the mother/parents are prepared to care for it and it is done willingly. Having to bear a child while you don't wish to do so, is done unwillingly.


I do not know the laws of England.
Impertinent to the legal basis (in the UK), you, my forum friend, do not have the right over your own existence. Neither should a fetus.
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#145
Report 11 years ago
#145
(Original post by yawn)
FACTS:

Prolifers are actively involved in caring for women in crisis pregnancies and difficult child-raising situations.

Prolifers are actively involved in caring for "unwanted" children and the other "disposable people" in society.

It is "abortion providers" who do not provide support for women choosing anything but abortion.
That is simply slanderous.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#146
Report 11 years ago
#146
(Original post by Agent Smith)
That is simply slanderous.
Prove it!
Absinthe
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#147
Report 11 years ago
#147
(Original post by yawn)
If you read my posts, you will see that I have never maintained that abortion clinics 'force' a woman to have an abortion.

What I am saying, and what is correct, is that abortion clinics do not offer 'post abortion' counselling. In other words, they carry out the abortion and do not offer a service to their client when she later suffers emotional trauma because of having had an abortion.

That is left to the 'pro-life organisations who have to pick up the pieces...you know...the ones you accused of doing nothing to support the mother. They are there to support her whether she has the baby or suffers post-abortion trauma afterwards.
First off, I did not accuse ALL pro-lifers of doing nothing to support the mother. Remember that dude I mentioned in my post, who did just that? He was just an individual, though.

Also I notice you are trying to use the old Daily Mail approach of "they don't offer post-abortion trauma counseling". I've never been for an abortion myself so I cannot offer any insight as to that matter. But hell, maybe we should just ban abortion entirely (which is what you are supporting here, I presume? Your posts certainly indicate this, though you have not stated it outright) and then when women go and get their abortions (which they will still go and get) I think they'll have a bit more to worry about from the service than merely not being given counselling.
0
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#148
Report 11 years ago
#148
(Original post by Agent Smith)
That is simply slanderous.
Yawn is probably refering to the two prolifers that fit the "facts" :p:
0
GregoryJL
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#149
Report 11 years ago
#149
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
There's no need to be a complete ****, you know...
Indeed there isn't, my apologies. I have a shot fuse when it comes to 'abortion' debates - I assure you I wasn't attempting to tar the entire pro-life lobby (or rather group) with the same brush.

Considering the entire issue rests upon when something becomes a 'person', or rather a human worthy of moral consideration, to freely conflate the issue with 'living' without even an apology for an argument is a pretty poor show - it goes to the 'abortion is WRONG!' 'No it isn't, you just hate women!' 'Baby-killer!' to-and-fro a few pages quicker than it should. Ayer would have a field day, not least for it conforming remarkably well to the 'load of hot air' he considered ethical arguments to be.

So, anyone care to argue why a given point of development bestows personhood (or perhaps some fraction thereof, in the case of a gradualist approach?) I would, personally, go for a metric based on the potential of a given fetus - so the likelihood of it surving to term, and the quality of its life thereafter should be weighed up. I don't think a deontic method focusing upon the rights of an individual work when the individuals in question gain their 'humanness' over a series developmental events.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#150
Report 11 years ago
#150
(Original post by Absinthe)
First off, I did not accuse ALL pro-lifers of doing nothing to support the mother. Remember that dude I mentioned in my post, who did just that? He was just an individual, though.
You said:
FYI yawn, no abortion clinic forces a woman to have a termination.
Since I have never said that they did, I am puzzled why you implied I did - and I want an answer to that point, please.

Furthermore, I don't remember a post of yours where you mention "that dude" and tbh, I haven't read all your posts so that probably explains why.


Also I notice you are trying to use the old Daily Mail approach of "they don't offer post-abortion trauma counseling".
You assume a lot about people, don't you? I am not trying to use the "old Daily Mail approach" and to suggest I have appears to be an obvious attempt on your part at demeaning my argument. It is a fact that no abortion clinic in the UK offers post-abortion counselling to their patients. It is a shame they don't since it might give them an insight into just how emotionally traumatic an abortion can be. I wonder if they mention this information in their pre-abortion counselling sessions?

I've never been for an abortion myself so I cannot offer any insight as to that matter. But hell, maybe we should just ban abortion entirely (which is what you are supporting here, I presume? Your posts certainly indicate this, though you have not stated it outright) and then when women go and get their abortions (which they will still go and get) I think they'll have a bit more to worry about from the service than merely not being given counselling.
I have met many women who have suffered in this way and hence my greater knowledge of potential deleterious effects of abortion on the mother. I have made it quite clear in all my contributions to the many identical debates on TSR about abortion that I am pro-life - and have given all the reasons, with corroboration for my stance.

I refer you to my post #82 on this thread. http://thestudentroom.co.uk/showthre...=338344&page=5

And I also asked on the same post that people resisted reducing their arguments to ad hom attacks.
yawn
Badges: 13
#151
Report 11 years ago
#151
(Original post by RK89)
Yawn is probably refering to the two prolifers that fit the "facts" :p:
Do you understand what 'slanderous' means? :confused:

In case you don't, Smithy was levelling the accusation that I was being slanderous because of the stated fact that no abortion clinics offer support for women choosing not to have abortions.
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#152
Report 11 years ago
#152
(Original post by yawn)
Do you understand what 'slanderous' means? :confused:

In case you don't, Smithy was levelling the accusation that I was being slanderous because of the stated fact that no abortion clinics offering 'post-abortion' support.
I was looking at the other two "facts" on that post of yours. Abortion clinics dont need to provide the emotional support, the NHS fulfils that role.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#153
Report 11 years ago
#153
Since I have no desire to monopolise the pro-life stance on this thread, I shall bow out for a while to allow other pro-lifers the chance of debate.
yawn
Badges: 13
#154
Report 11 years ago
#154
(Original post by RK89)
I was looking at the other two "facts" on that post of yours. Abortion clinics dont need to provide the emotional support, the NHS fulfils that role.
The NHS also fulfils the role of providing terminations of unwanted pregnancies, but that doesn't stop the private clinics doing likewise.

They should accept responsibility for the post-abortion effects on their clients and provide the emotional support that is required.

Regarding the other two facts - are you saying that pro-life organisations don't offer the support I said they did? First, in what way is that slanderous? And secondly, prove they don't provide the support!
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#155
Report 11 years ago
#155
(Original post by yawn)
The NHS also fulfils the role of providing terminations of unwanted pregnancies, but that doesn't stop the private clinics doing likewise.

They should accept responsibility for the post-abortion effects on their clients and provide the emotional support that is required.

Regarding the other two facts - are you saying that pro-life organisations don't offer the support I said they did?

If you are, prove it.
Oh they do provide support. On a bed of thorns.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#156
Report 11 years ago
#156
(Original post by RK89)
Oh they do provide support. On a bed of thorns.
So you have no answer to my questions, rather an attempt at ducking the issue?

Sound bites maketh not good debating. Might be acceptable on 'Chat' but here we have higher standards.

Anway, I'm going to have my dinner now and leave the cudgels to someone else...
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#157
Report 11 years ago
#157
(Original post by yawn)
So you have no answer to my questions, rather an attempt at ducking the issue?

Sound bites maketh not good debating. Might be acceptable on 'Chat' but here we have higher standards.

Anway, I'm going to have my dinner now and leave the cudgels to someone else...
No i just enjoy being concise. I see no need to write an essay on the type of support pro lifers give to those going through abortion, a quick trawl of the net could answer that question.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#158
Report 11 years ago
#158
(Original post by Yarr)
The discussion here isn't what we do with the born child, but with the unborn one. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.
No it isn't. I believe you have a burden upon you to be logically consistent in your reasoning. If you will make an exception for one, but not the other, then I will cast your posts into the fiery pit of nonsense. Beware! *shakes hands in ominous manner*

Anyway, what is highlights is the completely arbitrary nature of the opinion which you offered.

However, I will say that the distinction is a very important one; a pregnancy is not a piece of cake or pie, or whatever you favour. If a baby is born into the world, assuming what I argue for is enforced, it will be there by consent.
I don't see how that follows.

I do not know the laws of England.
I don't care - I do not live in England either.

Impertinent to the legal basis (in the UK), you, my forum friend, do not have the right over your own existence. Neither should a fetus.
Well you can argue that, but I think you'd get quite a few objectors, however it is pointless trying to argue it on the basis of "that's what the law says, naananananana, I'm not listening" - particularly when there are sound exceptional reasons for such laws. Who does my life belong to then, if not me?

I also remind you that, while euthanasia is unlawful in the United Kingdom, suicide has been legalised. Rather trumps your argument there.
0
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#159
Report 11 years ago
#159
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
No it isn't. I believe you have a burden upon you to be logically consistent in your reasoning. If you will make an exception for one, but not the other, then I will cast your posts into the fiery pit of nonsense. Beware! *shakes hands in ominous manner*
You're drunk.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#160
Report 11 years ago
#160
(Original post by Agent Smith)
You're drunk.
And you, sir, are a Tab. Tomorrow, however, I shall likely be yet more drunk... er... quite.
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

Do you think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (36)
97.3%
No (1)
2.7%

Watched Threads

View All