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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nouvelle_vague)
    If you'd taken time to read my other post as well, you would have realised that I'm definitely not of the opinion that abortion is an easy way out, nor should it be taken 'lightly' but the fact of the matter is the girl was being a bit naive as to suggest that because she has A Levels and GCSEs she'd be able to support a child at 17. Unless she's extremely fortunate to have parents willing to support her or a man who's stuck around then she's basically ****** for life. Fair enough single mothers get their own homes and money given to them by tax payers, but is that really fair? Why should other people have to pay for the mistakes of someone who got knocked up at 17 and has no one else to turn to?

    Fair enough there is the choice of adoption but I don't think any man, God or law has the right to say what a woman can and cannot do with HER body. It's not an easy decision to go through the pain of an abortion, just as it probably wouldn't be easy to live with the fact that you gave a child away - especially seen as the emotional connection with the child would have been greater than it would have been a few weeks into the pregnancy.

    It's so easy for a man to say a woman should keep their child when if push comes to shove they can easily just say 'look it's not my problem, you deal with it' beacuse at the end of the day, any male can walk away a woman has to deal with it for the rest of her life: whether she has an abortion, puts her child up for adoption or keeps it. There is NO easy way out for a woman when it comes to something like this.

    And as for your 'burden' speech, give me a ******* break. Over reaction much? There is a huge difference between me saying that a seventeen year old girl could not handle the hardships of motherhood and the fact that the elderly need taking care of and teenagers can be dicks. Seriously man. :facepalm:

    Does that include female babies' bodies? I know it's a cheap shot, but it really lies at the heart of the dispute. "when do people begin to have rights" is the issue needing addressing. Of course women have rights, but so do the little people they're imposing their will upon.

    As far as my "burden speech" goes, I was merely pointing out that inconvenience is an absolutely abhorrent justification for taking life. You clearly agree. Now, the only question needing an answer is "when does life become human."

    And I can't speak for other men, but I know that if I made a girl pregnant, I would beg her not to have an abortion, and if she didn't want a "******-up life," I would gladly raise the child myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    It is not hypocrisy, most religious groups who are against homosexuality, accept people being gay but do not accept the act they partake in, therefore of course these people would fight for their children rights.

    What a complete contradiction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    in the end it is up to the woman who is pregnant, so it doesn't really matter what any of you think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    . . .Other than the fact while it remains in the womb it is reliant upon its mother, and consequently is a secondary organism. The mother has priority when it comes to abortion.
    We're talking about the MOMENT before it's born. It's not dependent on it's mother. Women have induced births all the time, of course the baby could survive without the mother a bit earlier than it would normally be born.

    I don't know what you mean about "the mother having priority." No one is saying to kill the mother.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Abort!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *waves pro-choice flag*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    We're talking about the MOMENT before it's born. It's not dependent on it's mother. Women have induced births all the time, of course the baby could survive without the mother a bit earlier than it would normally be born.

    I don't know what you mean about "the mother having priority." No one is saying to kill the mother.
    Er well obviously? No one is suggesting abortions are carried out to full term unless medically required?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Er well obviously? No one is suggesting abortions are carried out to full term unless medically required?
    Now, this is why you can't just jump into a conversation halfway. That's exactly what kultist is saying. He suggested setting the line of a person having rights and a person not having rights AT BIRTH.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely 100% pro-choice.
    I disagree with the use of abortion as a contraceptive, but if contraception fails I think an abortion is pretty much an entitlement.
    Plus, surely a woman should have the right to control her own body?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-choice. Although I do question the current time limit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Definately Pro-Life, why should the baby, or what is the potential to be baby, pay for the mothers and fathers mistake? Sure if it was like the mother would die unless she aborts, then she should have the right to decide. People will say "its the womans body, she has rights" well so does the baby! and I think when you get pregnant, you forfit those rights, the main concern should be the baby, and not the mother. You can always put the baby up for adoption.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What a complete contradiction.
    Not really, people are born gay because its parrtly genetic. However, they shouldn't partake in sexual acts even though they have that tendency.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I'm pro-life unless the mother's life is at risk
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am staunchly pro choice.

    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    Of course women have rights, but so do the little people they're imposing their will upon.
    If it cannot survive independently of the woman to keep it alive, then I think the rights of the woman supersede any rights the fetus might have.

    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    And I can't speak for other men, but I know that if I made a girl pregnant, I would beg her not to have an abortion, and if she didn't want a "******-up life," I would gladly raise the child myself.
    But do you think it's fair for or anyone to force someone to gestate a pregnancy and give birth to a baby they don't want?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, foetuses are not conscious until birth so they are essentially just a bundle of cells in the womb
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    I'm pro-life unless the mother's life is at risk
    Not rape?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    Because that's crazy. There's nothing to distinguish a baby before its born from a baby after its born except that the baby after it's born has taken a breath. Who do we think we are, that we can say that's when a human has rights? And if we think that we have that power (which no one does or should), then what's to stop us from making other arbitrary distinctions, like a "human" is only someone with an IQ over 70, for example? I'm not saying that that's likely, I'm just saying it's every bit as arbitrary.
    Well, the baby after it has been born is DEFINITELY a human being and killing it would be murder. The one that hasn't been born yet is more hazy; and even if it happens to be functionally identical to the one who has been born, I value the life of the woman carrying it and her rights to bodily autonomy, to not carry a rapist's or relative's child and not to have to go blind or go on dialysis due to complications far more than I value the right of some nebulous creation that may or may not actually be a person to live.

    N.B. I'm pro euthanasia. If it can't suffer, it's not human. If it can't do anything BUT suffer, put it out of it's misery.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I don't have it within me to go through an abortion no matter what the circumstances are so I would never have one. Hwoever I understand why people feel the need to have abortions and it is their choice. If a friend wanted an abortion then I would support them no matter what. On the contrary I don't agree with abortions as a form of conraception because two people were stupid :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Not really, people are born gay because its parrtly genetic. However, they shouldn't partake in sexual acts even though they have that tendency.


    According to your storybook they should'nt.

    However we live in the 21st century and thankfully don't take much notice of fairytales anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teigan)
    I am staunchly pro choice.



    If it cannot survive independently of the woman to keep it alive, then I think the rights of the woman supersede any rights the fetus might have.



    But do you think it's fair for or anyone to force someone to gestate a pregnancy and give birth to a baby they don't want?
    well, first of all, I'm arguing why abortions right before birth aren't okay, which you would seem to agree with.

    However, I have a question for you: Why is the baby's dependence a reasonable reason to deny it rights? Certainly it's not any less dependent once it's born? I've never heard a rational philosophical reason for this argument.

    I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, I'm saying they should be responsible for consequences of their actions, even if they were unintended. Sex is a risk, and should be taken seriously.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.