Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    what's pathetic is your irrational argument that a woman who has been forced into sexual intercourse and penetrated against her will should keep the baby.
    I don't understand how the circumstances that led to the baby's conception is relevant to whether it ought to be given a chance to live.

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    I don't believe a feotus has a "right to life" but I do believe we have a duty to preserve potential life as much as possible
    Why do we have such a duty?

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    except in cases where danger is presented to the mother, or in cases of rape.
    Why are these two cases excempt from this so-called 'duty' to preserve potential life?

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    in consensual sex a mother knows full well the consequences that said situation may lead to, and thus accepts the consequences on rational terms.
    So if I open my window on a hot summers day and I am subsequently burgled, I should accept my share of the responsibility because I knew full well that opening the window may lead to that said situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I'm not a "black and white" pro-lifer, so I have no real opinion on what to do with a teen who has abusive parents. I'm referring to the general idea of a woman having consensual sex and then having an abortion because she just doesn't want a baby. In a pure situation, there are no psychological effects.

    As for the rape victim, no there may not be problems, but that doesn't mean all the rape victims who do suffer psychological problems should have to suffer.
    In that case, perhaps you should drop the crude raped/consensual sex divide when it comes to the potential psychological harm caused by pregnancy and giving birth; instead, concede that it's far more complex and that each case ought to be decided on its merit.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    I don't understand how the circumstances that led to the baby's conception is relevant to whether it ought to be given a chance to live.
    Because in such cases the rights of the mother (to be) supercede that of the feotus.
    Why do we have such a duty?
    Because life is precious? Etc, etc.
    Why are these two cases excempt* from this so-called 'duty' to preserve potential life?
    *exempt. Because they weren't conceived consensually. And I believe the rights of the mother are of more importance than that of the feotus, because it's essentially a parasite until birth. In cases of rape the mother had no choice. Thought we'd already been through this?
    So if I open my window on a hot summers day and I am subsequently burglard, I should accept my share of the responsibility be cause I knew full well that opening the window may lead to that said situation.
    No, can't really see where you're coming from, in fact you're arguing in favour of what I've been saying.

    Question: if a woman was brutally raped and would be emotionally traumatized by carrying to term, would you allow her to have an abortion, or would you force her to have the child?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    In that case, perhaps you should drop the crude raped/consensual sex divide when it comes to the potential psychological harm caused by pregnancy and giving birth; instead, concede that it's far more complex and that each case ought to be decided on its merit.
    For the most part it should. But I think rape victims should all be given the choice. You can't necessarily determine whether or not a raped woman will suffer psychological damage during the early stages of her pregnancy. If they all have to undergo a special examination of some sort to determine the legitimacy of their abortion right, then you start to cross into the pregnancy stages where abortion becomes less and less acceptable by society's standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I like how much words can effect things. The OP describes people being either pro or against abortion (I would like to point out nobody sane is pro-abortion) and the name pro-life seems to insinuate that the people they oppose are actively pro-death or something. As it stands, I don't know what to think.

    I believe there is a clear scientific distinction between a regular human being and a foetus, but we must definitely avoid encouraging abortion. Adoption is better in all circumstances, but I also believe in the right to of choice for women who effectively see their body invaded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Adoption is better in all circumstances, but I also believe in the right to of choice for women who effectively see their body invaded.
    But couldn't one argue that when the woman chose to have sex, she allowed her body to be invaded? You know, by those millions of little tadpoles that make her eggs grow that she allowed free entry to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Because in such cases the rights of the mother (to be) supercede that of the feotus.
    Why?

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Because life is precious? Etc, etc.
    Why is life precious?

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    No, can't really see where you're coming from, in fact you're arguing in favour of what I've been saying.
    No, I'm not arguing in favour of what you have been saying. You argued that a woman who is pregnant as a result of consensual sex should not have the right to seek an abortion because she chose to have sex and was well aware of the risks. Similarly, a person who opens their window on a hot summers day should be well aware of the fact that he or she is creating the risk of a burglary. In other words, if we are to follow your logic, the houseowner ought to bear the responsibility if a burglary takes place.

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Question: if a woman was brutally raped and would be emotionally traumatized by carrying to term, would you allow her to have an abortion, or would you force her to have the child?
    No, I'm pro-choice. A woman should have the right to seek an abortion for whatever reason until the baby is able to survive outside of the womans womb.

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Because they weren't conceived consensually. And I believe the rights of the mother are of more importance than that of the feotus, because it's essentially a parasite until birth. In cases of rape the mother had no choice. Thought we'd already been through this?
    You see, this is the problem I have with your position on this issue: it's not consistent. Although I'm pro-choice, I have much more respect for e.g. the Roman Catholic position on abortion i.e. 'abortion is wrong FULLT STOP', than your: 'abortion is like totally cool in like some situations innit but not like fine in others innnit'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    But couldn't one argue that when the woman chose to have sex, she allowed her body to be invaded? You know, by those millions of little tadpoles that make her eggs grow that she allowed free entry to.
    Indeed, but one should not allow a stupid action dictate what happens to her for the rest of her life
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    well half n' half to be honest,
    young teens that cant looks after it,people whom have been rape and became pregant,
    people who have a disability/illness that may pass onto the child
    i think thats less shameful reason to the people
    who just have an abortion cuz'the cant be bothered with all the work
    or do it because it may get in the way of their work life or socail life
    i think thats totally ridiculas to be honest
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Indeed, but one should not allow a stupid action dictate what happens to her for the rest of her life
    But why should a whole other life have to suffer because of that stupid action?

    Pregnancy doesn't have to affect her entire life anyway - you're clearly a fan of the adoption alternative.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    Why?
    Because they had their body violated in the worst imaginable way.
    'abortion is like totally cool in like some situations innit but not like fine in others innnit'.
    Firstly, nobody said that. Secondly, no it's not, abortion is never right, but sometimes it's the most fitting or appropriate action to take.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    But why should a whole other life have to suffer because of that stupid action?

    Pregnancy doesn't have to affect her entire life anyway - you're clearly a fan of the adoption alternative.
    Yes, but the choice should always still be an option. We should never force people to put the child up for adoption just as we should never force them to abort a child.

    And I don't belive that the lives of a foetus and a fully grown human being are equatable, so where possible the priorities of the human should be considered higher. I think the current system we have is flawed anyway, we could nearly eliminate the need for abortion if we stopped arguing about it and focussed our efforts on educating the people who would go out and have unprotected sex.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    But I think rape victims should all be given the choice.
    If a) the rationale behind the policy to allow women who are pregnant as a result of rape is to prevent serious psychological harm to the pregnant woman, and b) we know that not all women who are raped will suffer serious psycholoigcal harm if they have the baby, why allow all women who are pregnant due to rape the option to have an abortion by default?

    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    You can't necessarily determine whether or not a raped woman will suffer psychological damage during the early stages of her pregnancy. If they all have to undergo a special examination of some sort to determine the legitimacy of their abortion right, then you start to cross into the pregnancy stages where abortion becomes less and less acceptable by society's standards.
    Well public opinion (as well as the law) recognises the need to permit doctors to perform an abortion at whatever stage of the pregnancy if there is a serious threat to the woman's physical wellbeing, and so I don't see why public opinion would be against the termination of a pregnancy at a later stage if the woman in question is suffering serious psychological harm.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    what about the rights of the unborn baby? why are they different from a normal human being?

    We are allowed to kill unborn babies, but we have so many stupid loopholes that protect the rights of convicted rapists, paedophiles, murderers, terrorists etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Square)
    what about the rights of the unborn baby? why are they different from a normal human being?

    We are allowed to kill unborn babies, but we have so many stupid loopholes that protect the rights of convicted rapists, paedophiles, murderers, terrorists etc.
    But, an unborn baby is just a bunch of cells for the first weeks and months. Why should those cells' rights supercede the mother's mental and emotional health?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Yes, but the choice should always still be an option. We should never force people to put the child up for adoption just as we should never force them to abort a child.

    And I don't belive that the lives of a foetus and a fully grown human being are equatable.
    But the difference is, forcing her to put it up for adoption doesn't hurt anyone.

    Why isn't the life of a fetus worth the same as a full grown human?

    (Original post by JectioN)
    If a) the rationale behind the policy to allow women who are pregnant as a result of rape is to prevent serious psychological harm to the pregnant woman, and b) we know that not all women who are raped will suffer serious psycholoigcal harm if they have the baby, why allow all women who are pregnant due to rape the option to have an abortion by default?
    I answered that already in the very post you're quoting.

    Well public opinion (as well as the law) recognises the need to permit doctors to perform an abortion at whatever stage of the pregnancy if there is a serious threat to the woman's physical wellbeing, and so I don't see why public opinion would be against the termination of a pregnancy at a later stage if the woman in question is suffering serious psychological harm.
    She may not even suffer psychological harm during the pregnancy. The real effects could easily come later.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainfaery)
    But, an unborn baby is just a bunch of cells for the first weeks and months. Why should those cells' rights supercede the mother's mental and emotional health?
    Well maybe she should have made sure she didn't get pregnant in the first place? I can understand the need for abortions in the case of rapes/health issues etc. but a 'get out of jail free' card it should not be.

    To be honest with you, the right to life supercedes a mother's mental and emotional health.

    Plus, there's nothing wrong with putting the baby up for adoption?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Because they had their body violated in the worst imaginable way.
    So what? If, as you claim, abortion is 'never right', why does it suddenly become permissible to kill a baby because of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding his or her conception?

    (Original post by 35mm_)
    [Firstly, nobody said that. Secondly, no it's not, abortion is never right, but sometimes it's the most fitting or appropriate action to take.
    Why is it the most 'fitting or appropriate action to take'? Instead of permitting abortions, why not earmark taxpayers money to offer world-class counselling and psychological help (as well as the option of adoption) to women who are pregnant as a result of rape? Surely this makes far more sense if, as you claim, abortion is 'never right'?

    P.S. You haven't answered my other questions. Why is life precious?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I answered that already in the very post you're quoting.
    That wasn't an answer. Certainly not an adequate one.

    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    She may not even suffer psychological harm during the pregnancy. The real effects could easily come later.
    Once again, this may also be the case for women who are pregnant due to consensual sex.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Square)
    Well maybe she should have made sure she didn't get pregnant in the first place? I can understand the need for abortions in the case of rapes/health issues etc. but a 'get out of jail free' card it should not be.

    To be honest with you, the right to life supercedes a mother's mental and emotional health.

    Plus, there's nothing wrong with putting the baby up for adoption?
    What about if a woman did take all precautions against getting pregnant, but her birth control failed, or the condom split, or something? And she just isn't ready? I can't say that I advocate abortion, just to get rid of a problem. But sometimes, I think it really can be the best option.

    And why should the right to life supersede the rights of someone who is already alive? I am really not trying to attack you, I am very curious. If someone is already live, and will be adversely affected by having a baby, why are the rights of some cells more important than her well-being?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.