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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    1. So is a fetus under my definition, as essentially it can't be differentiated from humans.

    2. This is getting ridiculous now. Thousands upon thousands more people have abortions when they are legal than when they are illegal. That is an undeniable fact. Therefore even if legal abortions were 10x safer this would still be cancelled out by the fact that 100x more abortions are carried out.

    3. A premature baby cannot do these things. Neither can some mentally handicapped people, especially Autistics. Are they on par with a fetus and therefore killable? Please don't change your differentiation beween humans and fetus's again, especially if I have already covered it.
    1) Under my definition it is not.

    2) So, what would you have pregnant women do? Go to the country somewhere, give birth and then pretend it never happened like they did in the olden days? If no woman had an abortion and gave birth and gave their baby up for adoption, could you imagine how many babies would need re homing?

    3) My differentiation was that humans are able to form relationship ties and have memories and thoughts, this is what makes them human. I have never changed it. Autistics and the mentally handicapped, as well as premature babies, may all have relationship ties with their parents and friends, and therefore they are human.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    1) Under my definition it is not.
    Aborted fetuses taste like chicken according some Chinese. I guess you'd have no problems if this happened in England? After all, they're not human and nobody cared for them whilst growing so why care for them now they're dead? I bet you if I made a thread on this they'd be an uproar with many being 'pro-choice'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    Yes ofcourse i have. However, why should the views of some dictate the lives of those who do not share the same views?

    If someone believes that abortion is murder, if they get pregnant they don't have to have an abortion. However, they cannot impose their views onto others who may not share the same negative view on abortion.
    Well, what if I were to say that I think it's fine to murder homeless people?

    You can't stop me. Have your opinion, but you can't impose it onto me because I think it's alright!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    1) Under my definition it is not.

    2) So, what would you have pregnant women do? Go to the country somewhere, give birth and then pretend it never happened like they did in the olden days? If no woman had an abortion and gave birth and gave their baby up for adoption, could you imagine how many babies would need re homing?

    3) My differentiation was that humans are able to form relationship ties and have memories and thoughts, this is what makes them human. I have never changed it. Autistics and the mentally handicapped, as well as premature babies, may all have relationship ties with their parents and friends, and therefore they are human.
    1. I have outlined why it is, you need to go further into why it isn't.

    2. If women really are desperate to not look after the child, there is a massive que waiting for healthy babies.

    3. So, was Helen Keller less of a human before she could communicate? Or people who are temporarily comatose?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Aborted fetuses taste like chicken according some Chinese. I guess you'd have no problems if this happened in England? After all, they're not human and nobody cared for them whilst growing so why care for them now they're dead? I bet you if I made a thread on this they'd be an uproar with many being 'pro-choice'.
    It's not something i want to try, but then i don't eat meat either. I don't really see anything wrong with it though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    1. I have outlined why it is, you need to go further into why it isn't.

    2. If women really are desperate to not look after the child, there is a massive que waiting for healthy babies.

    3. So, was Helen Keller less of a human before she could communicate? Or people who are temporarily comatose?
    In answer to your sentence where you said that there is a huge queue for the adoption of healthy babies, according to http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/england.shtml#pc just 4% of children that were adopted were under 1 year of age. 3 years and 11 months is apparently the average age of adoption. Hardly 'massive' queues waiting for healthy babies?

    Helen Keller was deafblind. She still had the ability to have thoughts and memories. She still had a friendship with Martha Washington, all of which make her, under my definition, human.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Well, what if I were to say that I think it's fine to murder homeless people?

    You can't stop me. Have your opinion, but you can't impose it onto me because I think it's alright!

    Abortion isn't murder, that's where the difference is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    In answer to your sentence where you said that there is a huge queue for the adoption of healthy babies, according to http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/england.shtml#pc just 4% of children that were adopted were under 1 year of age. 3 years and 11 months is apparently the average age of adoption. Hardly, 'massive' queues waiting for healthy babies?

    Helen Keller was deafblind. She still had the ability to have thoughts and memories. She still had a friendship with Martha Washington, all of which make her, under my definition, human.
    Yes, that's because people don't just give away healthy babies. Those children that were adopted were more than likely taken away from abusive parents. There was a program about it on C4, thousands of people wan't a normal baby but there aren't any available, so they generally adopt children who have been in long term care.

    What about people in comas?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    Abortion isn't murder, that's where the difference is.
    Definitions of murder on the Web:
    kill intentionally and with premeditation.

    If you believe the fetus is a baby as I do it doe constitute murder.. I mean booking in an appointment to kill the baby shows intention and premeditation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion: YAYYYYYY
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Yes, that's because people don't just give away healthy babies. Those children that were adopted were more than likely taken away from abusive parents. There was a program about it on C4, thousands of people wan't a normal baby but there aren't any available, so they generally adopt children who have been in long term care.

    What about people in comas?
    Do you have any statistics to back up this claim? Or are you citing C4 as your source?

    If people in comas have relationship ties they are still human and part of society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Definitions of murder on the Web:
    kill intentionally and with premeditation.

    If you believe the fetus is a baby as I do it doe constitute murder.. I mean booking in an appointment to kill the baby shows intention and premeditation.
    I think i got this definition from the same place you got your definition of murder, unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. Abortion is not unlawful in the UK, and therefore under my definition cannot be defined as murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    Do you have any statistics to back up this claim? Or are you citing C4 as your source?

    If people in comas have relationship ties they are still human and part of society.
    The whole program was on the topic. What if the person who is in a temporary coma has no friends or family by their bedside? Is it ok for the drs to kill them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    I think i got this definition from the same place you got your definition of murder, unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. Abortion is not unlawful in the UK, and therefore under my definition cannot be defined as murder.
    We knew what murder was long before there was ever an accepted law. There are legal definitions of murder, but that doesn't mean that in the abscence of law or with the law in their favour that it isn't muder.

    Killing Jews was not illegal during Weimar Germany, therefore I can assume you don't have a problem with this? After all it was 'legal'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The whole program was on the topic. What if the person who is in a temporary coma has no friends or family by their bedside? Is it ok for the drs to kill them?
    Do you have any statistics on the wishes of the would be adoptive parents? According to this website http://www.afteradoption.org.uk/page...01000100020011, people who have been in care are 66 times more likely to have their own children taken into care. It seems like a negative cycle to me. People often overlook the negative consequences of adoption. The person in the coma still has/have had a family and relationship ties with them, whether that family was by their bedside or not. So they are still human.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    We knew what murder was long before there was ever an accepted law. There are legal definitions of murder, but that doesn't mean that in the abscence of law or with the law in their favour that it isn't muder.

    Killing Jews was not illegal during Weimar Germany, therefore I can assume you don't have a problem with this? After all it was 'legal'.
    I've already gone over what i think makes a human or not. The Jews in my opinion were human, and i think it is wrong to kill humans. I obviously take a difference stance when it comes to a fetus.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    Do you have any statistics on the wishes of the would be adoptive parents? According to this website http://www.afteradoption.org.uk/page...01000100020011, people who have been in care are 66 times more likely to have their own children taken into care. It seems like a negative cycle to me. People often overlook the negative consequences of adoption. The person in the coma still has/have had a family and relationship ties with them, whether that family was by their bedside or not. So they are still human.
    That is because they have gotten to the point of needing to be siezed from their birth parents. These children have been left with detrimental parents for so long that they have severe problems, and people who want to adopt do not generally feel they can handle these children. There are no printed statistics on the exact number of people who would like to adopt, however there are statistics should give us some guidance:
    http://www.hfea.gov.uk/679.html

    1 in 7 couples has fertility problems. Seeing as the overwhelming majority of people want children, it is fair to assume that many of these couples would adopt if there was a large amount of 'unharmed' babies available.

    Ok then, what about a baby in a coma for a short period of time? Or a premature baby that the parents don't want?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    I've already gone over what i think makes a human or not. The Jews in my opinion were human, and i think it is wrong to kill humans. I obviously take a difference stance when it comes to a fetus.
    I was highlighting why taking a legal stance on whether abortion is murder or not does not work, because if state approval is needed to define what murder is then murder then things like the holocaust do not constitute murder. According to the Nazis and their biased scientific research and reasoning (which we now know to be false) Jews were below humans, does that mean it wasn't wrong at the time? I mean the law was on their side, and science told them that these people were below them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    This.

    Unless the baby can be sustained outside of the womb.


    I mean, how lazy or indecisive do you have to be to wait 5 months to have an abortion?

    It might take some thinking time but waiting until it's a small person is not the way to go about it in my opinion.
    That's pretty flawed reasoning there... the 'viability' argument fails on so many levels and let me explain why:

    1) If physical independence is a necessary condition to be a 'human person' with human rights - then we should surely then strip the elderly and severely disabled of their right to live as they are totally dependent upon another person or machine to live. Why does 'viability' apply only at one end of life and not the other, or anywhere in between?

    2) The idea that all foetuses become viable and 'human people' under English law at 24 weeks is totally illogical. This time period has already come down by 4 weeks and the government are again under pressure to reduce it more. Isn't it morally absurd to move the 'boundary for human life'?

    We can then say, this foetus is a person with human rights and should not be killed - but if this was 5 years ago when medical technology wasn't as good, or if we were in a third world country, this foetus would not yet be a human person!

    3) It is only a matter of years from now (I read about 10 in New Scientist) that scientists will be able to rear embryos entirely outside the womb, from which point the argument that viability is the beginning of human life will have to collapse into the view that this boundary can only be conception.


    Legislators need to use logic and reason when deciding these things!

    Oh, and I think you'll have realised I'm pro-life in all but a small minority of abortions where they would be the lesser of two evils, basically following the doctrine of the act of double effect.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    It's not something i want to try, but then i don't eat meat either. I don't really see anything wrong with it though.
    This is the case for you but I bet you if it was found that aborted foetuses were being used for human consumption, by however means, and was reported in the media there will be an outcry; many of whom will be very relaxed with the idea of abortion. I just find that point a tad hypocritical. It's not something I'd try and people would seek criminal action if this happened on the grounds of 'not being nice' but I don't think slaughtering animals is very nice either. It's like this group on Facebook. A petition against the use of dogs as live bait for sharks whilst simultaneously enjoying big, fat juicy burgers and sausages. Because pigs and cows aren't cute and fluffy they're not deemed in the same light. All the same to me, but legalising farming of dogs for meat would be political suicide.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.