Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Let's not get bogged down on what was a throwaway comment (by both you and me).
    For a stable relationship in normal circumstances it might just be classed as "a bit of bother". There are situations where the social consequences of a pregnancy would be unnacceptable, don't make me find some, you can use your imagination.
    I cannot really imagine social circumstance which would give legitimate cause to abort the child. If such circumstances exist then why should not those already victim to such circumstances be 'aborted' also? After all if the unborn child is going to be 'saved' from a life of 'stigma' as stated earlier why not save those already enduring a life of stigma or unpleasantness/hardship from enduring it any further?
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I was suggesting they do take all possible precautions, you just suggested a plan akin to my first suggestion. This seems to show you think barrier methods adequate steps to take to avoid pregnancy.
    What have i said which points to my belief that only barrier methods are adaquete to avoid pregnancy? I dont recall specifying any single contraceptive or general type of contraceptive.
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    As I mentioned before condoms have a 1% faliure rate. This would not give a combined nationwide faliure rate of even below 1%.
    Yes. I fail to see your point. Combinations of contraceptives would.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I'm not so sure about this - condoms, the most commonly used contraceptive, are only 98% effective. Hormonal contraception methods have a 99% annual effectiveness (if 100 women used it for a year, 1 would become pregnant).
    Unwanted pregnancies do occur even when precautions are taken, should these people not be allowed to have an abortion?
    You mentioned condoms, how about the pill? And the morning after pill?

    Condoms at 98% effectivness, means if a man uses a condom 100 times, 2 condoms will be defective or improperly used. However, on those two occasions, the woman may not be fertile.

    As for your question (above) I said that I find abortion distastful, but tolerated it till the 2nd trimester.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHutcher)
    The mothers opinon counts because the baby has not got one or the capability of forming one.
    So surely those with mental disabilities or anything which inhibits their mental capacity similiarly have no rights and the option to have them terminated at the will of those with greater mental capacity should be allowed?
    (Original post by JHutcher)
    but there are two lves involved in every abortion, and not having an abortion can lead to the ruin of both... as cn having an abortion. its more complicated than simply saying the child has a right to life. Does the mother not also have a right not to be bound by a baby?
    If theres a risk to the mothers health then abortion should be allowed. Otherwise no. Yes the mother has the right not to be bound by a baby, a right she gives away as soon as she gets herself pregnant. She would not be pregnant were it not for HER actions(or lack of actions). If she does not want a child she can simply have it adopted;That way she is not stuck with an unwanted child and the child itself can actually live.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm bored as none of this is original, and not thinking well so I'm going to leave it at:
    I would be intrigued to understand how you would hope to reduce the unwanted pregnancy rate to below a few thoudand a year from the current 170 thousand - I do not think it is feasible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    You mentioned condoms, how about the pill? And the morning after pill?
    Hormonal contraception = the pill and patch and implant... I mentioned that had a 99% annual effectiveness
    The morning after pill would either fall under this category or even abortion in some peoples eyes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I'm bored as none of this is original, and not thinking well so I'm going to leave it at:
    I would be intrigued to understand how you would hope to reduce the unwanted pregnancy rate to below a few thoudand a year from the current 170 thousand - I do not think it is feasible.
    It was you who introduced proposals for reducing unwanted pregnancy not i. Thus i feel little compulsion to create feasible scenarios beyond those which have already been put forward as my own point was simply that abortion laws are far too lenient and there is far too little responsibility accepted by those who get themselves pregnant. As ive stated several times it should be a guarentee that any unwanted child could be given a home if the mother did not want to keep it and that is enough as it removes the 'burden' and ensure that the child will not be made to suffer an upbringing in an unwelcome home. The means are already available to ensure that you do not become pregnant and if you do so the responsibility is your own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    an Siarach, I'm interested...is your pro-life position purely a moral one or would you like to see it made a legal one as well? If you had the power, would you ban all abortions apart from those necessary to preserve the life of the mother, or those requested by rape victims?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Remember that those who advocate abortion on grounds of that it is their body don't necessarily advocate a similar position involving drugs as well.

    Also why do I get the feeling that other sexual acts are simply not being explored? Too much emphasis on sexual intercourse, it's like as if everyone who 'does it' only has sexual intercourse. I remember reading the thread in General Chat about the teaching of oral sex in schools. Why can't people engage in oral and/or anal sex to completion more often I don't know.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against abortion because I personally believe that it isn't fair to the baby, so if I became pregnant I couldn't have an abortion however if someone else does it then ya know what right do I have to criticise them for doing it? It's a personal choice, I think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sorani)
    I'm against abortion because I personally believe that it isn't fair to the baby, so if I became pregnant I couldn't have an abortion however if someone else does it then ya know what right do I have to criticise them for doing it? It's a personal choice, I think.
    Just to clarify, not argue. Are you against abortion at any point, ie any time after conception? Would that extend to the morning after pill?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The morning after pill doesn't bother me, it's really anytime after that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Should we impose our own moral code on others, particular in a situation were we can say there could be some situations ni which it was acceptable to do so?

    I think that legality should be based on practicality and not on subjective morality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mishael)
    an Siarach, I'm interested...is your pro-life position purely a moral one or would you like to see it made a legal one as well? If you had the power, would you ban all abortions apart from those necessary to preserve the life of the mother, or those requested by rape victims?
    I am very dubious regarding morality when it comes to things which affect one person as a result of their own choice but seeing as abortion is a process which has an effect upon one according purely to anothers will i am against it. Yes i think the law should be changed - or at least enforced correctly which it currently is not. The dilemma regarding rape victims is basically a different issue altogether and one which is very hard to debate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JHutcher)
    Should we impose our own moral code on others, particular in a situation were we can say there could be some situations ni which it was acceptable to do so?

    I think that legality should be based on practicality and not on subjective morality.
    Subjective morality indeed. If we should make a point of not having any moral code enforced upon others surely the just thing is to create a truly libertarian and anarchical society? Also if practicality were the sole deciding factor in which laws should be created a great number of those currently in place would disappear. In regards to abortion specifically i dont really see much of an argument for its practicality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For abortion

    -techinically the 'baby' in the womb is a parasite and its the mother's choice if she wants the parasite dead.

    -the baby may harm the mother

    -the baby may be brought up in horrible conditions and thus only increase the number to dumbheads in the country (this is a realllly stupid argument)

    Against abortion

    -DUH! its ALIVE....you kill the future of a child before it even sees the light of day.

    -there are alternatives...like abstinence or condoms or the morning after pill.

    What irks me most about the people against abortion is that some of them are under the impression that having a baby is some sort of punishment to the mother and some lesson she should get out of having a child. they believe that the individual baby has value but want to use it as a form of punishment. Anti abortion people just need to fully embrace the life standpoint. They need to help the woman who was raped to raise the child and make it one of the jems of society not its rocks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There are several references to imposing something on another person which brings when people feel the foetus is a person to the fore. The most common times for people to choose are:
    - conception -> a ball of cells with a separate genetic identity and are diploid (gametes have only half the genetic material of a normal adult cell), some say has the 'potential to develop into a human'
    - formation of primative nervous system (around 10-14 weeks) -> some evidence the foetus can feel stimuli (not neccesarily pain) from this point
    - 24 weeks ish -> baby would have a good chance of living without disability after this point (note this is the normal limit for abortions to take place before in the UK)
    - birth -> baby is not thought to be 'concious' anyway (based on anecdotal evidence of comparing intelligence with animals) until after 1 year
    I'm not going to debate this, or give my view. But thought it might interest some.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    For : Will prevent pointless death/s if there is risk to the mother.

    Against : Is generally used as a form of contraception by those who make no attempt to accept responsibility for their life.


    Which basically sums up the hugely selfish nature of pro abortionists in general. If a pregnancy is potentially so disasterous to ones life they should make sure they do not get pregnant which is not especially hard if you take the correct precautions. Do you honestly think the argument of 'oh itl save them the stigma of being unwanted' is worthwhile? Find me a child from a broken home who will happily state 'yes i wish id been aborted so i wouldnt have this stigma' or 'yes i wish id been aborted so my poor parents wouldnt have to face up to their responsibilities'. Beyond pregnancy via rape which is so rare as to be meaningless to the discussion it is practically impossible to become pregnant unless one fails to take correct precautions.
    It should be made easier for a newborn child to be put up for abortion in the case of it being unwanted but the 9 months minor inconvenience that the reluctant mother would have to suffer would doubtlessly have feminists up in arms as we all know a human life is worth far less than 3/4 of a year you might otherwise enjoy without responsibility if abortions were available at whim without necessity :rolleyes: .
    How about a lifetime's inconvenience to a reluctant father on the run from the CSA.? Or don't men have anything to do with this process?
    Who should be responsible for 'taking precautions' anyway ?
    If in doubt, blame a feminist, huh?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Remember that those who advocate abortion on grounds of that it is their body don't necessarily advocate a similar position involving drugs as well.

    Also why do I get the feeling that other sexual acts are simply not being explored? Too much emphasis on sexual intercourse, it's like as if everyone who 'does it' only has sexual intercourse. I remember reading the thread in General Chat about the teaching of oral sex in schools. Why can't people engage in oral and/or anal sex to completion more often I don't know.
    Or even just simple affection.
    This may be my screwed up Catholic upbringing but I think sex should be regarded as something profound - to be reserved for a long term relationship. (I don't go so far to say 'marriage'). I've been accused of being a 'prude' etc etc for this rather old-fashioned, (gasp) conservative perspective (mainly, strangely enough, by men).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    But what else is abortion but the enforcing of one persons will on another? That of the mother being forced upon the child? There is far too much emphasis on the 'choice' of the mother. The mother has the choice - with rape the exception but as pointed out before this is too rare to waste time on so pedants neednt bother - not to become pregnant to start with. Once pregnant how can the killing of her child be defended simply because she or her partner finds it 'invonvient'?
    And frequently it is the partner who finds it inconvenient. But the focus is always on the mother.

    Just how successful has the male contraceptive pill been anyway? Does ayone have any figures?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by bratcat)
    Or even just simple affection.
    This may be my screwed up Catholic upbringing but I think sex should be regarded as something profound - to be reserved for a long term relationship. (I don't go so far to say 'marriage'). I've been accused of being a 'prude' etc etc for this rather old-fashioned, (gasp) conservative perspective (mainly, strangely enough, by men).
    I don't think your views on sex are 'screwed up Catholic upbringing' - I do wish people wouldn't denigrate themselves or a faith in this way. I think that your view of sex as something profound that needs to be reserved for a long term relationship says much about your self-esteem and that is good. Why should you join the thinking of the masses who believe they are only good for 'shagging' the country's population?

    I shouldn't worry about the attitude of the men you have come into contact with. That is a subtle way of making you think there is something wrong with you rather than them - as a means of 'protecting' their supply of free sex. If all girls felt as good about themselves as you do, the male population risk repetitive wrist injury and blindness.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.