Turn on thread page Beta

Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible?
    Offline

    4
    (Original post by JapanNet)
    Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible?
    Because killing a baby is wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichardSkew)
    Because killing a baby is wrong.
    A fetus is not a baby.

    Also, too much spamming. Calm down.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Religion, politics or being misinformed about the whole process.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    A fetus is not a baby.

    Also, too much spamming. Calm down.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is a living thing still. Killing it is Murder, plain and simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The abortion debate is an incredibly complex one, made even more difficult by the pervasiveness of religious argumentation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichardSkew)
    It is a living thing still. Killing it is Murder, plain and simple.
    No and no.

    Simple indeed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Throughout history, humans who are more powerful have killed those who are weaker than them to suit their own agendas, justifying it on the basis that "well they're only [whatever], they're not proper people like us", resulting in dehumanisation and emotional detachment from their victims, and an overall desensitisation to their deaths. We look back on past civilisations who have proven themselves hopelessly inept at taking decisions about who has the right to live and who doesn't into our own hands, but must also consider the possibility that future civilisations may look at us in the same way.

    There's no reason to assume that we're all perfectly objective, unbiased and moral when it comes to decisions regarding the legality of abortion, particularly when the ability for us (fully grown humans) to abort is of so much potential convenience and benefit, and the victims of abortion have no voice on the subject. We the decision-makers have such a strong, personal, vested interest in the matter, and it exposes us to the high risk of ending up trying to post-rationalise our decisions once they have already been made, rather than making a moral decision to begin with.

    So rather than using the argument that "A fetus is not a real person it doesn't deserve the right to life", I prefer to err on the side of caution and say that it's not up to us to intervene in the natural process of life and death based our own biased or fallacious reasoning.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    A fetus is not a baby.
    Until the mother decides to keep it, thats when it becomes a 'baby'/life worth protecting.

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    No and no. Simple indeed.
    If a foetus is killed by an assault on its mother. The crime is considered a murder. As in, the killing of the foetus is considered a murder in and of itself if it is done by anyone else besides the mother. However, if that same mother decided to kill that same foetus by method of abortion it is considered A'OK, no, a woman's right....the hypocrisy and stupidity of these double standards is laughable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    think of it this way. lets say a woman is pregnant and she wants to keep the baby. but her 'other half' puts some abortion pills in her tea and she loses the baby. the man would get prosecuted for this. so why is it okay for the mother to kill the baby?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    the curious thing is that 99% of pro-death for unborn babies are against capital punishment for adults....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    If a foetus is killed by an assault on its mother. The crime is considered a murder. As in, the killing of the foetus is considered a murder in and of itself if it is done by anyone else besides the mother. However, if that same mother decided to kill that same foetus by method of abortion it is considered A'OK, no, a woman's right....the hypocrisy and stupidity of these double standards is laughable.
    In the UK, in order to get around this very problem, the crime has been conveniently renamed as "child destruction" instead of murder.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    In the UK, in order to get around this very problem, the crime has been conveniently renamed as "child destruction" instead of murder.
    lllol...what a laughing stock this makes of abortionists....still these two words are worse than the word 'murder'

    Additionally, it seems as though they've inadvertently recognised the foetus as being a child in this process.

    Its so easy to refute evil.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Until the mother decides to keep it, thats when it becomes a 'baby'/life worth protecting
    Maybe, but this is a question on abortion - which implies that the mother does not want to keep it.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    If a foetus is killed by an assault on its mother. The crime is considered a murder. As in, the killing of the foetus is considered a murder in and of itself if it is done by anyone else besides the mother. However, if that same mother decided to kill that same foetus by method of abortion it is considered A'OK, no, a woman's right....the hypocrisy and stupidity of these double standards is laughable.
    That is incorrect. The law is very complicated with regards to foetuses. They are not considered 'persons', are not protected by human rights and cannot be placed on ward by courts. A foetus only acquires legal rights when it is separated from its mother and receives an existence of its own.

    Precisely because of this, a person who kills a foetus CANNOT be charged with murder (case: A-G ref (No 3 of 1994)).

    The offence is child destruction, and applies only when the foetus is capable of being born alive (Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority).

    I suggest double checking what you say before saying it. And no, it's not hypocritical, because the law views foetuses as part of their mother, and mother can choose to have abortion on that basis.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)

    That is incorrect. The law is very complicated with regards to foetuses. They are not considered 'persons', are not protected by human rights and cannot be placed on ward by courts. A foetus only acquires legal rights when it is separated from its mother and receives an existence of its own.
    Nazis used to have a definition for human rights too. They used to kill Russian prisoners based on a similar way of thinking to yours. Russian prisoners weren't human beings according to their definition of what is human so they used to treat them badly as compared to western european prisoners.

    I wasn't particularly referring to this country but referring to all countries where such act is legal including the USA which views feotuses as unborn children with rights. A foetus killed in the USA by anyone besides its mother is considered a victim of murder except when its mother decides to kill it where the act of murder becomes acceptable and is instead called an abortion.

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    The offence is child destruction, and applies only when the foetus is capable of being born alive (Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority)..
    Regardless, its still considered a crime but when the mother does it, its OK and you are literally repeating what we wrote above and not making any sense whatsoever with this statement.

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    I suggest double checking what you say before saying it. And no, it's not hypocritical, because the law views foetuses as part of their mother, and mother can choose to have abortion on that basis.
    English law:"A foetus is not simply part of the mother." "(A foetus is a)…unique organism"

    I suggest you act on your own advice before writing your next comment.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose religion
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Nazis used to have a definition for human rights too. They used to kill Russian prisoners based on a similar way of thinking to yours. Russian prisoners weren't human beings according to their definition of what is human so they used to treat them badly as compared to western european prisoners.
    Always the nazis when there's no argument to be had. Not unexpected.
    We are talking about the law of England. If you feel it's inadequate, you're free to make a petition. The law is not debatable and definitely not subject to your childish remarks.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    I wasn't particularly referring to this country but referring to all countries where such act is legal including the USA which views feotuses as unborn children with rights. A foetus killed in the USA by anyone besides its mother is considered a victim of murder except when its mother decides to kill it where the act of murder becomes acceptable and is instead called an abortion.
    You can't possibly generalise this argument. This is just plain stupid. Every country will treat this matter differently, as it may treat differently many other matters.

    It's like justifying not allowing women to drive because Saudi Arabia does the same - literally stupid.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    You are literally repeating what we wrote above and not making any sense whatsoever with that statement.
    I did not read what was said above because I replied to the quote. But this is inconsequential - you made a mistake on a point of law (a gross mistake at that) and I corrected you. The sentence is then from the court, so it really is a case of you being unable to grasp it, rather than me not making sense.

    You need to widen up your horizons.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    English law:"A foetus is not simply part of the mother." "(A foetus is a)…unique organism"

    I suggest you act on your own advice before writing your next comment.
    There are legitimate sources and illegitimate ones. The one I provided is an actual House of Lords decision (in its previous capacity as the supreme court of the land). The one you provided is simply taken from the first website you found on google.

    This is my final reply to this emotional mess of an argument you've advanced. Law and religion, at least in the UK, are separate, and you should do well to remember that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichardSkew)
    It is a living thing still. Killing it is Murder, plain and simple.
    A plant is also a living thing, but when you prune your roses I bet you don't feel guilty about dismembering them.

    Weak argument bro.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    Always the nazis when there's no argument to be
    had. Not unexpected.
    when you are compared to such people so often doesn't that tell you something?

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    You can't possibly generalise this argument. This is just plain stupid. Every country will treat this matter differently, as it may treat differently many other matters.
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    We are talking about the law of England.
    Nope, you are 'talking' about the 'law of England'. This thread is about why people think that abortion is not permissible. My comment in particular to which you replied is about abortions in general.

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    The law is not debatable and definitely not subject to your childish remarks.
    In your alternate facist reality it might not be, but in our free, democratic society everything is subject to debate and every person is entitled to voice their opinion freely without being insulted or put down.

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    It's like justifying not allowing women to drive because Saudi Arabia does the same - literally stupid.....etc
    What in the world are you chatting about?

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    There are legitimate sources and illegitimate ones.
    Yep, and you get to decide which is which; Fascism 101.

    (Original post by _Fergo)
    This is my final reply to this emotional mess
    The only emotional mess here is you. Everyone else is conducting themselves with respect and matureness becoming of this issue.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RichardSkew)
    It is a living thing still. Killing it is Murder, plain and simple.
    Bacteria is also a living thing, I don't see any calls to ban killing bacteria


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,069

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your 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.