Turn on thread page Beta

Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating? watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Once we’re pregnant this guy just sees women as baby vessels. Her life is unimportant from that point on, her only function is to grow and raise a baby for the rest of her life. Quality of life of the mother has no bearing to him. That’s the problem with prolifers, they don’t care about quality of life, just quantity.
    Your ignorance is surprising. I have never ever said that women are vessels or anything that you accuse me of saying.

    I am anti-abortion and not anti-woman. This is the issue with some women. When you dont want to do whatever they want, then you hate all women.

    All i have saying is that i dont think that women have or should have the right to kill an unborn child. When the child is born, i did not say it is the women sole job to take care of the child. It is the father and mother’s role to do so.

    Please refrain from attacking me and trying to paint me in a bad light. Let us debate the subject and reduce the emotional mudslinging.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    That’s the problem with prolifers, they don’t care about quality of life, just quantity.
    I don't even think it's that. The pro-life lobby has historically been dominated by the idea of patriarchal authority over women's bodies (whether that is religious or secular patriarchy). Their arguments aren't usually presented in this way directly but that is what it tends to come down to, behind the curtain so to speak.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    Your ignorance is surprising. I have never ever said that women are vessels or anything that you accuse me of saying.

    I am anti-abortion and not anti-woman. This is the issue with some women. When you dont want to do whatever they want, then you hate all women.

    All i have saying is that i dont think that women have or should have the right to kill an unborn child. When the child is born, i did not say it is the women sole job to take care of the child. It is the father and mother’s role to do so.

    Please refrain from attacking me and trying to paint me in a bad light. Let us debate the subject and reduce the emotional mudslinging.
    Forcing a woman to spend 9 months growing a baby that they don’t want, especially putting them through the trauma if it’s a rape caused pregnancy, is totally disregarding quality of life for women. You can’t imagine how it would feel having a constant reminder of what happened to you inside your own body, and the turmoil of hating the baby and loving it at the same time. It’d be like putting headphones on a vet with ptsd 24/7 playing war noises.

    Emotion is very much ingrained in this topic, which is what you seem to be missing. There are so many cases where pregnancy can be traumatic for women. Quality of life for the person who already exists and lives in the world is more important than an unborn child. A person who has lived on this earth for years deserves to be taken care of over an unborn child.

    Being anti-abortion is anti choice for women. It isn’t giving women the control of their own bodies, unless they are on death’s door. This is a highly emotive topic and if you’re wanting to discuss your opinion that women’s quality of life isn’t as important as a foetus, you should be prepared for emotional responses.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Forcing a woman to spend 9 months growing a baby that they don’t want, especially putting them through the trauma if it’s a rape caused pregnancy, is totally disregarding quality of life for women. You can’t imagine how it would feel having a constant reminder of what happened to you inside your own body, and the turmoil of hating the baby and loving it at the same time. It’d be like putting headphones on a vet with ptsd 24/7 playing war noises.

    Emotion is very much ingrained in this topic, which is what you seem to be missing. There are so many cases where pregnancy can be traumatic for women. Quality of life for the person who already exists and lives in the world is more important than an unborn child. A person who has lived on this earth for years deserves to be taken care of over an unborn child.

    Being anti-abortion is anti choice for women. It isn’t giving women the control of their own bodies, unless they are on death’s door. This is a highly emotive topic and if you’re wanting to discuss your opinion that women’s quality of life isn’t as important as a foetus, you should be prepared for emotional responses.
    Yet, a woman killing her unborn child appears to be the better option.

    Pregnancy is a traumatic experience for many women whether they want to keep the child or not. Women who seek to abort do not have a special experience over other women.

    There are women that have experienced some of the most heinous rape encounters and still keep their children. I heard a story of a woman that was kidnapped and brutally raped plus maltreated many times. When she was freed, she kept the child and gave birth to a son. When asked why she did not kill it, her response was “my son did not do anything to me, so why should i kill him?”

    Now, i understand that this is one story and there are many women psychologically or physically weaker to be as brave as the woman, but that is immense for a woman to have done the right thing by her child. She is also not the only one, there are many rape cases where women have kept the child. It is not a new thing.

    Now to the anti-woman topic. I have never in anyway dictated what women should do with their bodies. Although i have views on how men and women should behave and engage in the world. E.g. men taking care, protecting and serving their women with women doing the same for their men. I have never tried to force my opinion on another person whether it is a man or a woman.

    My ONLY viewpoint that i have with this topic is the issue of killing an unborn child. Now, the fact that a child lives and depends on its mother for survival should not be the reason for the mother to have final say on the fate of the child. If she has a say during pregnancy then she should also be allowed to terminate her child, if she finds out that she cannot or is not ready to take care of her.

    The other poster posed a question of what about a disabled child. I think that if a mother is unable to kill her disabled child after birth, why should she be allowed to kill it before birth?

    We have gone round circles and we keep coming back to the same place. Like i told a poster some days ago, whatever a woman wants to do to her offspring, she can well do it. If she decides to even remove her womb she can. However, if i was asked for an opinion, i would say that she does not have a right to decide the fate on another person’s life.

    Not all women should be mothers. It is better to have an average mother than a horrible one. With the way some kids are growing up nowadays, i think motherhood should be regulated. I think motherhood is a precious and amazing thing and should be closely guarded.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    What?

    A slow developer is like someone with downs syndrome. Medicine is now quite advance that doctors can find whether an unborn baby will have DS. The issue is that they wont know whether it will be moderate or extreme DS. Extreme DS shows severe mental retardation or slow cognitive development.

    So you think that it is okay for a woman to kill a Downs Syndrome baby because it could affect her social life. Wow!

    I think you are really young and probably naive. You need to mature a bit and then we can have a chat.
    There was nothing wrong with what I said. If a Mother needs to stay at home her whole entire life to take care of her child then yes it means she most likely won't have a job, social life etc. Social life is one of the very few aspects.


    Stop trying to humiliate me. I am not very young- I am 19, neither am I naive or immature.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by loveleest)
    There was nothing wrong with what I said. If a Mother needs to stay at home her whole entire life to take care of her child then yes it means she most likely won't have a job, social life etc. Social life is one of the very few aspects.


    Stop trying to humiliate me. I am not very young- I am 19, neither am I naive or immature.
    Sorry, i did not intend it to come out that way. I got emotional when i saw you try to justify the death of unborn child.

    Let me ask you a question: if a woman gives birth and finds out that her child has severe Downs Syndrome. The doctor did not find it during pregnancy. Do you think that she can or should be allowed to kill the kid?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    Sorry, i did not intend it to come out that way. I got emotional when i saw you try to justify the death of unborn child.

    Let me ask you a question: if a woman gives birth and finds out that her child has severe Downs Syndrome. The doctor did not find it during pregnancy. Do you think that she can or should be allowed to kill the kid?
    No, because I believe that whilst the "baby" is in the womb, they are not actually human beings yet (up to 36 weeks). So If a Mother killed a human (her child) then it's obviously murder. I do think she should give her child up to adoption
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    No, because I believe that whilst the "baby" is in the womb, they are not actually human beings yet (up to 36 weeks). So If a Mother killed a human (her child) then it's obviously murder. I do think she should give her child up to adoption
    Now I'm not saying you're wrong here, I'm just curious...

    What do you personally see as the difference between killing 35 week unborn baby and a newborn baby? And why does it make one wrong over the other?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EpicBrum)
    Now I'm not saying you're wrong here, I'm just curious...

    What do you personally see as the difference between killing 35 week unborn baby and a newborn baby? And why does it make one wrong over the other?
    One is a human, the other one isn't.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    One is a human, the other one isn't.
    So the second question. Why is it wrong to kill it when it's human but not beforehand?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    What?

    A slow developer is like someone with downs syndrome. Medicine is now quite advance that doctors can find whether an unborn baby will have DS. The issue is that they wont know whether it will be moderate or extreme DS. Extreme DS shows severe mental retardation or slow cognitive development.

    So you think that it is okay for a woman to kill a Downs Syndrome baby because it could affect her social life. Wow!

    I think you are really young and probably naive. You need to mature a bit and then we can have a chat.
    DS is about far more than slow cognitive development. I'm sure my friend would love if that was all the issues his 12 year old has. But he also has behaviour difficulties and no speech and he still requires a lot more care than most 12 year olds.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    DS is about far more than slow cognitive development. I'm sure my friend would love if that was all the issues his 12 year old has. But he also has behaviour difficulties and no speech and he still requires a lot more care than most 12 year olds.
    I agree, but i don't think you friend would want to shoot his 12 year old dead because it was affecting their social life.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by loveleest)
    No, because I believe that whilst the "baby" is in the womb, they are not actually human beings yet (up to 36 weeks). So If a Mother killed a human (her child) then it's obviously murder. I do think she should give her child up to adoption
    I think you are confused. Doctors will strongly disagree with your point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I think you are confused. Doctors will strongly disagree with your point.
    The term 'baby' is a bit too vague for these kinds of arguments. It makes more sense to talk of a pregnancy involving the development of a foetus which at some point can be described as a 'person'. Until a foetus becomes a person then there's no 'murder'. Sure, you can argue about the point a foetus becomes a person but otherwise that is the distinction applied.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    The term 'baby' is a bit too vague for these kinds of arguments. It makes more sense to talk of a pregnancy involving the development of a foetus which at some point can be described as a 'person'. Until a foetus becomes a person then there's no 'murder'. Sure, you can argue about the point a foetus becomes a person but otherwise that is the distinction applied.
    You can try to make a distinction whatever way you like.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I do not agree. I do not think a woman has the right to decide the fate of an unborn child.

    I agree that some people are too extreme either way. We are talking about the termination of life. Some people see it like changing shoes or some mundane thing.
    I do agree that there are two extreme sides, im more in the middle.
    But i do think that because the foetus is living inside of the woman, she should have the right to terminate. She isn’t an incubator solely for the care of her potential child, if her economic status will make the childs life and her life harder, or she simply isnt ready for the responsibilities of a child then it should be her choice.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EqualitySloth)
    I do agree that there are two extreme sides, im more in the middle.
    But i do think that because the foetus is living inside of the woman, she should have the right to terminate. She isn’t an incubator solely for the care of her potential child, if her economic status will make the childs life and her life harder, or she simply isnt ready for the responsibilities of a child then it should be her choice.
    That is the key problem. A woman should not have the right to take another person’s life.

    If she gets pregnant and finds out that she is unable to take care of the offspring then there are opportunities for adoption and public support. There are women who take that step rather than terminating the unborn child.

    I am getting tired of going round circles. It is ridiculous how people have attempted to bring up reasons to justify the killing of an unborn child.

    In the end, like i wrote before, the woman can do whatever she wants. If she rips out her womb today, i would not care. However, my view is nobody should have a right over the fate of another person’s life.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    You can try to make a distinction whatever way you like.
    But abortion is legal and morally defended on the basis of such a distinction. If you can't, for example, satisfactorily demonstrate that a fertilised egg is suddenly a 'person' (as most of us would accept that term) then you won't easily convince supporters of abortion that it is wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    But abortion is legal and morally defended on the basis of such a distinction. If you can't, for example, satisfactorily demonstrate that a fertilised egg is suddenly a 'person' (as most of us would accept that term) then you won't easily convince supporters of abortion that it is wrong.
    I am not here to convince supporters of abortion why they should not support the killing of unborn children. I am here to state my opinions.

    Whether abortion is legal is not something to be proud of. There were times that slavery was legal and morally defended where black people were viewed as 3/5 of a human being. There were times that it was legal and morally defended to discriminate against women, because they were viewed as weak and unintelligent. Even now it is legal to be islamophobic and use ridiculous claims to morally defend people’s stupid irrational fear of Muslims.

    To your point about conception and when does a fertilised egg become a person, i have explained my view to another poster, which was left un-rebutted. I do not want to repeat it. I’d suggest you scroll back and read my exchange with other posters. Else, i will run the risk of repeating myself more than I would want to.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I am not here to convince supporters of abortion why they should not support the killing of unborn children. I am here to state my opinions...
    So you don't want anyone to respond to your views if they are critical of them? I mean, we are all here stating our opinions aren't we? All you have to say is that your position is based on the premise that a fertilised egg is a 'child' or a 'person', no? Some of us, a lot of us, reject that premise is all.
 
 
 

1,383

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.