Abortion
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hannah220601
I just want to hear some different views on the matter as I’m doing my epq on whether it is morally correct to abort an child just want some variation of opinions to inspire my research 😊
At what stage is a foetus classed as alive? This is what should define this moral issue.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Uncombined human eggs and spermatozoa have the same potential. Are we stipulated to combine them and create foetuses wherever possible, so as not to waste that potential? Why is conception such a magical, oh-so-special moment that that is when we decide it has potential?
Becuase that's how we create life.
Original post by liamsgone
Becuase that's how we create life.
Separate egg and sperm cells are already living cells - that doesn't distinguish them from a fertilised egg. Try again.
Yo, if you want a utilitarian perspective, read 'practical ethics' by Peter Singer.
Original post by NM15
At what stage is a foetus classed as alive? This is what should define this moral issue.
Well my question isn’t completely developed yet but I’m hoping to be looking into whether the fetus is considered to be a human being and whether an act of abortion is considered to be murder and if so is it morally correct to put someone in the position of taking a life
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Separate egg and sperm cells are already living cells - that doesn't distinguish them from a fertilised egg. Try again.
I don't think you understand my point. You cannot create life without Sperm and an Egg. Can you?
Original post by Hannah220601
Well my question isn’t completely developed yet but I’m hoping to be looking into whether the fetus is considered to be a human being and whether an act of abortion is considered to be murder and if so is it morally correct to put someone in the position of taking a life
I watched a documentary on this and majority said abortion is murder however they all agreed that the men should have a say also. They all also said that a fetus is a human being as soon as the egg and sperm unite.
Original post by lil minx
Does more good than harm?
You are murdering something that would one day of been child. Taking a life (which is what it would be) is definitely doing more harm than good.
What about the physiological damage? It doesn't always have to be physical.
You are murdering something that would one day of been child. Taking a life (which is what it would be) is definitely doing more harm than good.
What about the physiological damage? It doesn't always have to be physical.
If a woman chooses to have an abortion then the psychological damage of having the child obviously appears worse to them than not having it.
And to your first point, "something that would one day have been child" could be the same definition of unfertilised eggs. You can't take away life if it was never there in the first place. And i feel like humans inflate the meaning of "living", like the idea of preventing something from having a life is worse than the pain it could cause, when a baby with the same exact gene pool could be born years later and live a much happier life.
Original post by computuring
If a woman chooses to have an abortion then the psychological damage of having the child obviously appears worse to them than not having it.
And to your first point, "something that would one day have been child" could be the same definition of unfertilised eggs. You can't take away life if it was never there in the first place. And i feel like humans inflate the meaning of "living", like the idea of preventing something from having a life is worse than the pain it could cause, when a baby with the same exact gene pool could be born years later and live a much happier life.
And to your first point, "something that would one day have been child" could be the same definition of unfertilised eggs. You can't take away life if it was never there in the first place. And i feel like humans inflate the meaning of "living", like the idea of preventing something from having a life is worse than the pain it could cause, when a baby with the same exact gene pool could be born years later and live a much happier life.
Well, the life was there. The moment the egg is fertilised it would of become a baby eventually. So that is the beginning of life. That baby when born would one day grow to be an adult. Again, that is a life. So that is the difference between a fertilised egg and a unfertilised egg.
How do you know the baby would have a harmful life? There are many people out there who would love to have a child and can't and would like to adopt maybe. Why is abortion the answer for some when we have adoption?
What if the woman changed her mind? It could cause physiological damage. Especially, if she is young and being pressured into having one.
Also, yes one could be born from the same gene pool. But they wouldn't be the same baby would it. Seeing as me inherit different characteristics of both our mother and father and even our ancestors (as can skip a generation)
Original post by liamsgone
I completely understand the tragic cases in which an Abortion could save a life and is needed to do so but i believe that we should not be focusing on the very small percent of cases that people use to try and change the vast majority of defenceless immoral killings of unborn children.
I completely disagree with you. I believe abortion should not be frowned upon and considered 'immoral' if there is a good reason for the abortion to take place. For example, would it not be more cruel to put an innocent child into a world where it would be unwanted and raised by unloving parents? I understand there is adoption, but there is complications that come from adoption, such as when the truth needs to be revealed to the child and they realise that actually their real parents didn't want them. This can cause many issues for the child, expressed by the research into the so say 'adopted child syndrome', so in real terms, abortion may be the most loving thing to do for the child, instead of giving it a life where they are MORE LIKELY to experience pain and suffering from an early stage.
More so, it would not be fair to the child for abortion to not take place in the scenario of it being introduced into a world of poverty and struggling. This would mean a defenceless, innocent child would be forced to suffer...
In my opinion, abortion is NOT immoral if the good outweighs the bad. People on this thread have already spoken about abortion being correct when a medical condition would mean the mother would more likely die during child birth etc....which I completely agree with. In this case, the mother may have other children which she needs to look after, and her having this other child would cause more harm than good. This would probably mean the unborn child would face many difficulties also as say, the children of the dead mother may blame the unborn child for her death as it grows up..
I am a believer of pro choice, but not to the extent where a mother can access an abortion just because she decides she cannot be bothered to have the child.
I also believe that abortion is not immoral if the child will face hardship due to it being born. I have expanded on this when I used the hypothetical situation about a mother who just doesn't want the child and therefore, would resort to perhaps adoption, causing more hardship for the child in the long run... She may even feel forced to keep the child, which may resort to abuse and difficulty in the unborn child's life.......
In regards to this question, in EPQ, I think the reasons for abortion should be considered and weighed up to determine whether it is morally acceptable. And this will help you come to the conclusion about whether a doctor should be put into the position of having to perform abortions....but remember these are mostly specialised doctors who are willing to perform these abortions..
I think current UK abortion laws are absolutely respectable...I'm open to debate about my views!!
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Uncombined human eggs and spermatozoa have the same potential. Are we stipulated to combine them and create foetuses wherever possible, so as not to waste that potential? Why is conception such a magical, oh-so-special moment that that is when we decide it has potential?
Yeah basically it's immoral to not be constantly raping people, waste of "potential" life. /s
Completely agree with what you're saying. The idea of assigning rights to a fetus as soon as it has been created seems completely arbitrary. It's about as sentient as a watermelon.
Original post by lil minx
Well, the life was there. The moment the egg is fertilised it would of become a baby eventually. So that is the beginning of life. That baby when born would one day grow to be an adult. Again, that is a life. So that is the difference between a fertilised egg and a unfertilised egg.
How do you know the baby would have a harmful life? There are many people out there who would love to have a child and can't and would like to adopt maybe. Why is abortion the answer for some when we have adoption?
What if the woman changed her mind? It could cause physiological damage. Especially, if she is young and being pressured into having one.
Also, yes one could be born from the same gene pool. But they wouldn't be the same baby would it. Seeing as me inherit different characteristics of both our mother and father and even our ancestors (as can skip a generation)
How do you know the baby would have a harmful life? There are many people out there who would love to have a child and can't and would like to adopt maybe. Why is abortion the answer for some when we have adoption?
What if the woman changed her mind? It could cause physiological damage. Especially, if she is young and being pressured into having one.
Also, yes one could be born from the same gene pool. But they wouldn't be the same baby would it. Seeing as me inherit different characteristics of both our mother and father and even our ancestors (as can skip a generation)
They are both potential lives not actual lives, you can't really define a ball of cells as being a life
There are many more children needing to be adopted than there are people willing to adopt, and being in and out of foster care can be very damaging for children. And I'm assuming you have never had a child, but it is still unfair for a woman to have to undergo pregnancy if they do not want to (when we have the means to terminate it) because it is not an easy thing at all.
It is true they could be pressured into abortions, but i am arguing why women should have the choice to abort, that is a completely different thing. Even if she changes her mind, it is not up to other people what she does with her body, and she should be allowed to choose.
They wouldn't be the same baby yes but why does that matter. A 20 year old aborting a baby, then having a baby at 25 has the same outcome as her just having a baby at 25.
Original post by skoutone
abortion violates the NAP
no it doesn't; you can't violate a non-"living" human being
Original post by liamsgone
I don't think you understand my point. You cannot create life without Sperm and an Egg. Can you?
I don't think you understand my point. If you took a sperm cell and an egg cell and combined them in a test tube, to create a biological construct that could, under the right conditions, become a human being, and then threw away that fertilised egg, would that be morally wrong? A waste of human potential?
If, on the other hand, you simply took the sperm cell and the egg cell and threw them away individually, haven't you wasted that potential just as much? Why is the specific moment of conception where we draw the line?
Original post by Pro Crastination
Yeah basically it's immoral to not be constantly raping people, waste of "potential" life. /s
Completely agree with what you're saying. The idea of assigning rights to a fetus as soon as it has been created seems completely arbitrary. It's about as sentient as a watermelon.
Completely agree with what you're saying. The idea of assigning rights to a fetus as soon as it has been created seems completely arbitrary. It's about as sentient as a watermelon.
Maybe because a fetus can potentially grow to a human being who can experience and contribute to the world, and a watermelon can't?
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
I don't think you understand my point. If you took a sperm cell and an egg cell and combined them in a test tube, to create a biological construct that could, under the right conditions, become a human being, and then threw away that fertilised egg, would that be morally wrong? A waste of human potential?
If, on the other hand, you simply took the sperm cell and the egg cell and threw them away individually, haven't you wasted that potential just as much? Why is the specific moment of conception where we draw the line?
If, on the other hand, you simply took the sperm cell and the egg cell and threw them away individually, haven't you wasted that potential just as much? Why is the specific moment of conception where we draw the line?
Because that moment is when the definite chance of growth to develop to a full human is established.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by kataali
Maybe because a fetus can potentially grow to a human being who can experience and contribute to the world, and a watermelon can't?
Woah there, watermelon is really tasty. I'd consider that to be a contribution.
More seriously, a sperm and/or an egg could "potentially" grow into a human too. So are we all immoral for not constantly having children? After all, we're denying potential life...
Original post by kataali
Because that moment is when the definite chance of growth to develop to a full human is established.
So, what - are you saying that you'd look down on a person if he threw the contents of those two test tubes away, but only if he combined their contents first?
Original post by computuring
They are both potential lives not actual lives, you can't really define a ball of cells as being a life
There are many more children needing to be adopted than there are people willing to adopt, and being in and out of foster care can be very damaging for children. And I'm assuming you have never had a child, but it is still unfair for a woman to have to undergo pregnancy if they do not want to (when we have the means to terminate it) because it is not an easy thing at all.
It is true they could be pressured into abortions, but i am arguing why women should have the choice to abort, that is a completely different thing. Even if she changes her mind, it is not up to other people what she does with her body, and she should be allowed to choose.
They wouldn't be the same baby yes but why does that matter. A 20 year old aborting a baby, then having a baby at 25 has the same outcome as her just having a baby at 25.
There are many more children needing to be adopted than there are people willing to adopt, and being in and out of foster care can be very damaging for children. And I'm assuming you have never had a child, but it is still unfair for a woman to have to undergo pregnancy if they do not want to (when we have the means to terminate it) because it is not an easy thing at all.
It is true they could be pressured into abortions, but i am arguing why women should have the choice to abort, that is a completely different thing. Even if she changes her mind, it is not up to other people what she does with her body, and she should be allowed to choose.
They wouldn't be the same baby yes but why does that matter. A 20 year old aborting a baby, then having a baby at 25 has the same outcome as her just having a baby at 25.
Well, you would assume wrong. I do have children. Several infact.
aww, is it unfair for her to have to undergo pregnancy? Well with the exception of her having a medical condition preventing her having a pregnancy or her being raped, then I don't sympathise at all. Why? Because if you have unprotected sex than you have to face the consequences. And that would be you might get pregnant. It's called taking responsibility. Saying the child would be better of dead because it's mother doesn't want to be pregnant is ridiculous, she should think of that BEFORE she had sex and asked the dad to also be equally responsible and use a condom. Abortion should not be there for people who can't be bothered being a parent.
Potential lives? How? Potential is something that MIGHT happen. A fetus HAS happened. The egg has been fertilised already, it's growing and growing into a baby. Remember that Cells are the building blocks of all life. Hardly fair to call a fetus just a bunch of cells, when it's heart is beating by 6 weeks and it's brain is forming as is it's spinal cord etc.. it is even moving by 7 weeks that would be visible on an ultrasound scan. Yeah.. your right it's not "alive" at all.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
