Turn on thread page Beta

Is abortion ever permissible? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is abortion ever permissible?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JapanNet)
    Is abortion ever permissible?
    :yep:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Someone's gonna say 'When the child has a disability' but I can't get behind that argument. We're constantly told how it's not okay to discriminate against people who have disabilities and how they are just as valuable as able-bodied people, yet a disabled foetus is of less worth than a normal foetus? It's contradictory.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The silly thing to do would be to say 'Only before X week'. That number is just arbitrary, it doesn't mean anything. You need to have an event whereupon a foetus becomes a full human being with rights. Should it be upon brain activity? Upon conception? Or should abortion be permissible right up to birth? How about after birth? It used to be in the past that you could kill your child up to one year after birth and it would be classified as a 'post-natal abortion'.

    Just pointing out the silliness of having an arbitrary time where abortion is not okay after.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    The silly thing to do would be to say 'Only before X week'. That number is just arbitrary, it doesn't mean anything. You need to have an event whereupon a foetus becomes a full human being with rights. Should it be upon brain activity? Upon conception? Or should abortion be permissible right up to birth? How about after birth? It used to be in the past that you could kill your child up to one year after birth and it would be classified as a 'post-natal abortion'.

    Just pointing out the silliness of having an arbitrary time where abortion is not okay after.
    Most people would agree on conciousness and brain activity I think. Before that point it's less developed than a plant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Most people would agree on conciousness and brain activity I think. Before that point it's less developed than a plant.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What makes brain activity special though? Why not allow abortion even after primitive brain activity begins?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    What makes brain activity special though? Why not allow abortion even after primitive brain activity begins?
    Because that's what separates the foetus from just being an extension of the mother, pretty much. Before that point it's as much of an individual life as your gall bladder.

    This is at 14-16 weeks, when voluntary movement occurs.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can I assume you are doing RE ?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Because that's what separates the foetus from just being an extension of the mother, pretty much. Before that point it's as much of an individual life as your gall bladder.

    This is at 14-16 weeks, when voluntary movement occurs.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah brain activity seems pretty reasonable. Although this source says that regular and sustained brain activity does not occur until around the 25th week. (http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/m...es-life-begin/) Before that, those movements aren't really voluntary but 'jerky reflexes'.

    Does brain activity really give the foetus an independent existence though? It is still dependent on the mother, after all. And yet, that leads to such situations as killing a baby just before it's born and calling it an 'abortion'.

    Would you say that an extension should be made on the time abortion is permissible if the mother was raped or the foetus has a disability? I don't think it matters really, because it wouldn't change the status of the foetus as something with its own existence.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Yeah brain activity seems pretty reasonable. Although this source says that regular and sustained brain activity does not occur until around the 25th week. (http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/m...es-life-begin/) Before that, those movements aren't really voluntary but 'jerky reflexes'.

    Does brain activity really give the foetus an independent existence though? It is still dependent on the mother, after all. And yet, that leads to such situations as killing a baby just before it's born and calling it an 'abortion'.

    Would you say that an extension should be made on the time abortion is permissible if the mother was raped or the foetus has a disability? I don't think it matters really, because it wouldn't change the status of the foetus as something with its own existence.
    I'd make it 16 weeks and not make any change it status because I agree, there is no change in the status of the foetus. Also, after 3/4 months of missed periods, you should really know.

    However, I think the whole 'dependent' on the mother argument is rubbish. By the same logic, all infants are to an extent dependent on the mother for sustenance, care etc. Also, some people are dependent on life support machines and equipment - does that make them not alive. I don't think anyond would agree (unless they're brain dead, as linking with my argument) that we should just be able to 'abort' them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi..
    YES, abortion should be permissible, because, lot of family have plan their life schedule and they didn't want a baby early in their married life. So if any one want abortion it is may be legal.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buyabortionpills)
    Hi..
    YES, abortion should be permissible, because, lot of family have plan their life schedule and they didn't want a baby early in their married life. So if any one want abortion it is may be legal.
    many aspects in life are un planned. the thought that you can just kill or turn your back on that which you are responsible for is a curse. no wonder divorce is up. gee what other good can that mind set corrupt?



    there are plenty of women who have had children and lead succesful jobs. sucessful lives. pregnancy is not inconvenience ... just ones own mind set.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by JapanNet)
    Is abortion ever permissible?
    Even if you're against abortion in general, what if the woman was raped? Should she be forced to have that child still?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Even if you're against abortion in general, what if the woman was raped? Should she be forced to have that child still?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I understand this to be difficult situation, but can't go into great detail on how.
    In my research I have heard many discuss this side of the topic. From pro-abortion side, the question was always "what if." from the anti-abortion side, I heard, "I was raped." as well as "what if."

    I came upon the most frustrating and amazing article in which a teen refused abortion because it would have given the rapist what he wanted.

    In this article, the teen was also quoted for saying that she did not want to continue the violence that the rapist started against her and their child. Unable to locate this article for now but will try to supply it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I am, and will always be pro choice, so yes
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Even if you're against abortion in general, what if the woman was raped? Should she be forced to have that child still?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Is it the child's fault the father was a rapist?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    because we don't have enough of these abortion threads arguing the exact same thing over and over again 🙄
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think an old issue rears its ugly head again here and its the fact that the real reason this is such a big issue for people is because the west is scared of death and cant really come to terms with it being a normal part of life. When you think like this you understand that the real thing to think about here is suffering and who suffers or suffers most. And that has a lot to do with self awareness. We know mums self aware and can therefore suffer more than an unborn baby but how and when does the baby become aware. I heared that in japan were they are bhudist and think like this they have abortions as if it was going to the dentist and having teeth pulled out so i think they have the debate slightly wrong too because i still think its very healpfull to humanity to have empathy and think of this unborn as special in some way or at least potentialy special. But the whole every sperm is sacred argument seems wrong too. So to sum up my thoughts I think 1, we are too controling as a society and keep forgetting its not our body to decide so she can do whatever she likes 2, were all going to die so decisions have to be made on harm 3, we need to listern to the advice of professional experts even if they sometimes ocasionaly get it wrong they always get there in the end 4, human beings cant know everything, there are some things we will never know and could not have the capacity to know so lets forgive ourselvs and others on what ever decision they make as we are all trying our best how could we possibly do any more. here is one of the best trueisms i have ever heared i hope you all take this with you for the rest of your lives especialy the haters; "If you was in the exact same exact situation as another person making a decision with the exact same knowlede and body and feelings and experience you would make the exact same decision exactly the same as them every time".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohyeah12)
    I think an old issue rears its ugly head again here and its the fact that the real reason this is such a big issue for people is because the west is scared of death and cant really come to terms with it being a normal part of life. When you think like this you understand that the real thing to think about here is suffering and who suffers or suffers most. And that has a lot to do with self awareness. We know mums self aware and can therefore suffer more than an unborn baby but how and when does the baby become aware. I heared that in japan were they are bhudist and think like this they have abortions as if it was going to the dentist and having teeth pulled out so i think they have the debate slightly wrong too because i still think its very healpfull to humanity to have empathy and think of this unborn as special in some way or at least potentialy special. But the whole every sperm is sacred argument seems wrong too. So to sum up my thoughts I think 1, we are too controling as a society and keep forgetting its not our body to decide so she can do whatever she likes 2, were all going to die so decisions have to be made on harm 3, we need to listern to the advice of professional experts even if they sometimes ocasionaly get it wrong they always get there in the end 4, human beings cant know everything, there are some things we will never know and could not have the capacity to know so lets forgive ourselvs and others on what ever decision they make as we are all trying our best how could we possibly do any more. here is one of the best trueisms i have ever heared i hope you all take this with you for the rest of your lives especialy the haters; "If you was in the exact same exact situation as another person making a decision with the exact same knowlede and body and feelings and experience you would make the exact same decision exactly the same as them every time".
    That was the most incoherent drivel I've ever laid my eyes upon. However, I will attempt to answer it.
    Firstly, he/she states that it is vital that people should be completely sovereign and have full control over their body. It is important to recognise that the baby inside is an independent human being. It can also be asserted that if some mentally disturbed patient was trying to end their life, we would stop them and restrain them from doing so, so when does this body autonomy philosophy kick in, exactly?
    His/her second point doesn't make much sense to me, "were all going to die so decisions have to be made on harm". Could you elaborate?
    The third point makes reference to professional specialists. Now, I'm not exactly sure what specialist you're referring to, but the scientific objective stance is that human life begins at conception. No specialist has been able to refute this standpoint.
    Their final point is that we don't know anything, so whatever actions we make cannot be accounted for. This is nihilistic thinking and cannot be taken seriously in any debate.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,816

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
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.