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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    From the moment of conception, a woman's body prepares itself for motherhood and automatically has an emotional connection to the foetus growing inside of her. The connection the male has isn't created until there is a child born and it can be made through physical interaction with the child (holding, hugging, playing etc) a mother's connection goes so much deeper than a man's ever could and that's why I believe men should have no say in what happens to a foetus.
    This strikes me as really bizarre. whoever loves the child more can decide whether it lives?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    because its a living thing?
    That may be so but you haven't explained why a living thing such as a fetus ought to be preserved.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    This strikes me as really bizarre. whoever loves the child more can decide whether it lives?
    This misses the point - after you have sex - the man and the woman both should have no say over whether the life form should exist - its beyond that -to abort is to kill a life form. The law should protect those that don't have a voice i.e. the life form growing inside the womans womb. In having sex you take the risk that you may have a child. When the loony liberals talk about 'pro choice' they forget :there is the choice of NOT having sex. Does the fetus have any choice in the matter - no fetuses can't make choices but would any sane person choose death when there is nothing wrong with them over life? The purpose in sex is to create new life.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JectioN)
    That may be so but you haven't explained why a living thing such as a fetus ought to be preserved.
    Do you think murder is acceptable? Same concept you are taking away someones life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If I got pregnant at the age I am now, not in a relationship or with a steady income, I would get an abortion.

    If I didn't, I fear I would hate the baby, simply because I couldn't lead the life I wanted to lead because of its birth.

    Now I'm not saying that I have the right to project these feelings onto the baby as its obviously not the baby's fault, but this is how a lot of young mothers can feel if they have not been given the option of an abortion, whether they mean/want to or not.

    It is most definitely up to the mother overall. Not anybody else. The father has some say in it but in the end it isn't the fathers body and if they do want a child they should have it with someone who is ready to have one.

    Proooo-choice!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    Thanks alot. First of all, go read the posts. I'm saying that you agree that INCONVENIENCE is an abhorrent justification for taking life, as indicated by your reaction to my admittedly hyperbolic examples. What I'm saying, one more time to reiterate, is that the question lies in when the baby has rights. Because after that point, I'm sure you would agree that it's wrong to kill because it's hard to care for. Right?

    Well, I don't know when this Margin is, do you mean legally? I don't know what the UK laws are. Anyway, it's simply not true that a baby can't survive without it's mother until the due date. My sister-in-law can't have natural births, so she is induced every time she has a child. No machines or suffering required.

    I'm not saying I have rights in this issue. This is about the mother, her rights, and the child, and its rights. I'm just trying to give voice to the voiceless.
    I never once stated that inconvenience was an appropriate reason to abort! I think you may be taking my statements and either unconciously getting the meaning wrong or taking them to justify your counter-argument; which both only enhances my original statement :p:

    The truth is, MY BELIEFS are that a foetus remains so until it can kick, move around and until the parent knows the sex of the child. In the first few weeks of pregnancy where it is barely developed, that isn't a child therefore I personally think if one chooses, the choice should be to abort then. I've said before that I think the margain for when a woman should be able to abort should be shortened, because after a few month, even though it is super tiny, once it is aborted you can see that it is a child.

    When did your sister in law give birth to her children? Like, how far along was she? Because I am purely considering the UK laws from where a woman first concieves to when she no longer can... which is about 2/3 month, yes? I don't think a baby which is hardly developed would be able to survive...regardless of whether they use machines or not. I mean different people may show different examples but seen as I've never been in that position personally, I can't off

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    I never once stated that inconvenience was an appopriate or acceptable reason to abort... I think you're either simply misconstruing the meaning of my statements deliberatley or you're unconciously doing it, which only enhances my original statement... :p: if not, then I apologise, but you're totally wrong on your assumption.

    The truth is, my beliefs are that a foetus remains exactly that until it is born or identified as a male or female. In the first weeks of pregnancy where it is barely developed, that isnt a child as it has no sex, therefore I personally think if one choose to do so, the choice should be to abort.

    If you don't mind me asking, when did your sister in law have her children...like, how far along was she? Because I believe that the laws on how long a woman is allowed to wait until she aborts, here in the UK anyway, is too long. I don't agree with anything past, as I say, when the foetus becomes a human; male or female. I'm not really sure how along that is, but my margain for saying a foetus couldn't survive without machines is justified if we're on the same page in assuming that a woman is aborting at around 2 month... maybe a tiny bit more. Then I really don't think without the aid of a machine that an under-developed child could survive. I may be wrong, I don't argue that at all, but that's my beliefs.

    Also, for the other statement you quoted (thought I'd condense it into this one) it's not a question of who loves it more. You can't love something that isn't physically there or someone you don't actually know. You don't know an unborn foetus. A

    Also, for the other statement you quoted (thought I'd quote you once rather than haphazardly quoting throughout the thread), it's not really a question of who loves a foetus more... You can't love something that isn't pysically there, something you haven't gotten to know or learned about therefore I find it bizzare that you assume you can? This connection isn't necessarily 'love' it's a pure and biological connection between a mother and a child even before love comes into it; and thus no, a man can't relate to this in the slightest.

    PS. I didn't comment on 'voice for the voiceless'.... I thought it was a bit too cheesy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    A baby who was conceived by rape is still an innocent baby. It's not just "the product of something so abhorrent" - it's a baby. Rape is awful, but it's not the baby's fault.

    You think I'm sick because I don't like the thought of an innocent life being aborted? Okay....well in that case I must be sick :rolleyes:
    No, I think it's sick that your condoning rape. Which, essentially, you are. Basically you're saying that rape is totally okay if the end product is a child. Which is totally and utterly disgusting.

    Not only have you not considered basic human rights in this matter, you've barely even considered a woman's right not to be forcefully molested by an overpowering male... which is not only sick, it's pathetic.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    No, I think it's sick that your condoning rape. Which, essentially, you are. Basically you're saying that rape is totally okay if the end product is a child. Which is totally and utterly disgusting.

    Not only have you not considered basic human rights in this matter, you've barely even considered a woman's right not to be forcefully molested by an overpowering male... which is not only sick, it's pathetic.
    I don't see that poster condoning rape at all. You are putting words into other peoples mouths. It's not the fault of the baby that he/she was created via rape. What about the basic human rights of that baby?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    I never once stated that inconvenience was an appropriate reason to abort! I think you may be taking my statements and either unconciously getting the meaning wrong or taking them to justify your counter-argument; which both only enhances my original statement :p:
    Well, you did say this:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    motherhood is not a walk in the park and having GCSEs and ALevels won't prepare her for a life of having nothing but a child to look after and thoughts of a life she could have been leading.
    It sure SOUNDS like you’re saying that looking after a child is going to get in the way of living a different sort of life (i.e., it’s inconvenient). But maybe I took that the wrong way. So let’s just ask you point-blank: Would you favor a law that outlaws abortion in cases that the woman’s only reason is that “she’s not ready” (and I don’t mean physically not ready, as I said before the health of the mother is something that SHOULD be taken into consideration, I mean she feels like she should finish uni first, or she wants to start a career, etc.)?

    If you wouldn’t be in favor of that law, I’m sorry, you’re in favor of abortions for convenience. (at this point let me re-emphasize that no one actually has to raise the child if they don’t want, there’s always adoption)
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    The truth is, MY BELIEFS are that a foetus remains so until it can kick, move around and until the parent knows the sex of the child. In the first few weeks of pregnancy where it is barely developed, that isn't a child therefore I personally think if one chooses, the choice should be to abort then. I've said before that I think the margain for when a woman should be able to abort should be shortened, because after a few month, even though it is super tiny, once it is aborted you can see that it is a child.
    I wasn’t aware that you felt this way, that’s fantastic news. Sorry, I thought you were advocating even late-term abortions (since you said that babies are dependent on their mothers until their due date, and that rights depend on that dependence, for some reason).

    But why should we have to SEE that it’s a child for it to be a child? It makes more sense to me that the line should be drawn when the child can feel pain, or can respond to its environment, don’t you agree? Anyway, we both agree that the time that abortions should be legal should be shortened, so that’s a good first step as far as I’m concerned.
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    When did your sister in law give birth to her children? Like, how far along was she? Because I am purely considering the UK laws from where a woman first concieves to when she no longer can... which is about 2/3 month, yes? I don't think a baby which is hardly developed would be able to survive...regardless of whether they use machines or not. I mean different people may show different examples but seen as I've never been in that position personally, I can't off
    She carries the child almost to full term. The point I was making was to refute this:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    The fact is, even when a child is born on its due date, it is still hugely dependent on its mother.
    Due dates are not significant markers of dependency, much less when a child becomes a human with rights. I now realize you agree with this (giving your cutoff date much earlier).

    My cutoff date is still probably earlier than yours, but the reason for this is because I’m not sure when a child should be considered a being with rights, and I’d rather err on the side of life. If there was a 10% chance of a person being in a building about to be demolished, would you push the button?
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    Also, for the other statement you quoted (thought I'd condense it into this one) it's not a question of who loves it more. You can't love something that isn't physically there or someone you don't actually know. You don't know an unborn foetus. A
    You ARE saying that whoever has more of an “emotional connection” can choose whether or not it can survive, right? Why would my emotional, physiological bond to an unborn child give me the right to kill it?!?! That simply makes no sense to me.
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    You can't love something that isn't pysically there, something you haven't gotten to know or learned about therefore I find it bizzare that you assume you can? This connection isn't necessarily 'love' it's a pure and biological connection between a mother and a child even before love comes into it; and thus no, a man can't relate to this in the slightest.
    Why do I have to love it or know it to protect its rights? This is a matter of principle. I don’t know abused orphans in Africa either, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try and defend them.
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    PS. I didn't comment on 'voice for the voiceless'.... I thought it was a bit too cheesy
    Yeah, that’s pretty cliché, but it’s also how I feel. It seems to be easy for people to abuse rights of people who can’t express themselves.

    Thanks for not calling me a moron this time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    The difference is that one is wholly dependant on somebody else for life, whereas the other can, I won't say live, but exist independent of others.
    That's not true either. The vegetable in his wheelchair can't stick the feeding tube inside his own life, nor can he financially support his life support.

    (Original post by JectioN)
    That wasn't an answer. Certainly not an adequate one.
    I'm sorry to hear that.

    For future reference - me being unable to change your mind does not mean that I didn't answer your question

    Once again, this may also be the case for women who are pregnant due to consensual sex.
    How?

    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Because it's not human. Well, I lie, at some stages it might turn into one. That's why we currently have a limit at what time an abortion can be taken. A human is a thing that develops in the womb. I wouldn't say a zygote was a human nor would I say a foetus at 30 weeks was simply a collection of cells.
    Why isn't it human? It has the DNA of a human, it's growing into an adult. Why does it have to cross some arbitrary line to suddenly become a human? Why do we draw that line where it is, anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    Pro-Choice.

    It's a woman's choice as to what she does with her body.

    And to people comparing it to killing, at what stage does it become a "baby"? Why not force women to use every single egg they possibly could!

    when it becomes fertilised...obviously
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    That's not true either. The vegetable in his wheelchair can't stick the feeding tube inside his own life, nor can he financially support his life support.
    And I wouldn't argue that anybody was obliged to financially support him either. If someone chooses to that's entirely their choice.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    No, I think it's sick that your condoning rape. Which, essentially, you are. Basically you're saying that rape is totally okay if the end product is a child. Which is totally and utterly disgusting.

    Not only have you not considered basic human rights in this matter, you've barely even considered a woman's right not to be forcefully molested by an overpowering male... which is not only sick, it's pathetic.
    No, I'm not condoning rape at all. How you've come to that conclusion is totally beyond me. I shan't reply to you any longer because you are clearly quite delusional so it seems a waste of time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rosnovski)
    when it becomes fertilised...obviously

    You say obviously, but it's not a baby as soon as it's fertilised is it? It's still only potentially a baby. All manner of things can go wrong still at that point.

    As soon as I cut a tree down and take it into my workshop is it already a table?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    And I wouldn't argue that anybody was obliged to financially support him either. If someone chooses to that's entirely their choice.
    Well in a society with socialized health care they do.

    That's beside the point though. They depend on others to survive just as much as a fetus.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    The truth is, my beliefs are that a foetus remains exactly that until it is born or identified as a male or female. In the first weeks of pregnancy where it is barely developed, that isnt a child as it has no sex, therefore I personally think if one choose to do so, the choice should be to abort.
    Okay, I will comment on this - although it wasn't aimed at me. I was told at my 13 week scan that my baby was looking like it was a boy. It's unusual to be able to see the gender at such an early stage because normally the scans are too fuzzy, but that doesn't mean the gender is not developed by this time, because it is. My scan was particularly clear so it was able to be seen.

    13 weeks is well before the cut off for abortion - many many women have abortions around this time - yet the gender is definitely defined.

    edit : and yes it was later confirmed that it is indeed a boy, so they were spot on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Well in a society with socialized health care they do.

    That's beside the point though. They depend on others to survive just as much as a fetus.
    I think if the person or people who are caring for them decide that for whatever reason they don't want to continue doing so that they should be able to stop doing so. I'm not saying kill them, just take them off life support.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    I think if the person or people who are caring for them decide that for whatever reason they don't want to continue doing so that they should be able to stop doing so. I'm not saying kill them, just take them off life support.
    ...which is the same as killing them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    ...which is the same as killing them.
    No it isn't. It's removing care. You aren't killing them, you are merely no longer providing them with a service which costs you time and money. If they can't survive on their own that isn't anybody elses fault.

    And in reality no, I don't think that somebody who is completely brain dead has many rights. I think they should still be treated with some respect, but that's about it.

    Do you think that we are obliged to keep the brain dead alive aslong as we can?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    No it isn't. It's removing care. You aren't killing them, you are merely no longer providing them with a service which costs you time and money. If they can't survive on their own that isn't anybody elses fault.

    And in reality no, I don't think that somebody who is completely brain dead has many rights. I think they should still be treated with some respect, but that's about it.

    Do you think that we are obliged to keep the brain dead alive aslong as we can?
    Removing a feeding tube is definitely killing them. You are cutting off their means of staying alive.

    But no, I don't think we should have to keep them alive. Not because they don't currently have cognition, but because they never will.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.