Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    against against against completely and utterly against
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englandforever)
    I am pro choice

    As a woman I should be able to decide if I want to have a baby or not and not be forced to have a baby and keep it when it's not wanted. Also shouldn't be forced to give it away for adoption. Some people dont want to give up their child, people cant accept that..

    A womans body, womans life, womans choice

    Saying that it should not be used as a kind of contraception, if you keep getting pregnant and having abortions you should not have sex until you can do it safely, it's not hard.
    but they can accept killing it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im against abortion i think.... unless they are rape victims
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    HAHAHAHAHAAA!! loooooooool at whoever neg-repped me for stating that I was pro-choice. How utterly petty, lol!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Difficult one, I'm in favour of a total ban with jail terms for practioners but my concern is desperate women going to backstreet abortionists like in the past. Which results in not only the unborn childs death but their own or some kind of permanent injury.

    Something must be done about this however. I think the wk limits should be lowered because it's time people took more responsibility for their actions and really I find late term abortions disgusting. Secondly I would ban all private abortion clinics.All women must go through the NHS route and there should be a more intensive process on checking it is the best choice for both her and her unborn child.

    As it is quite well know now that some women experience mental health problems which has been linked to a past abortion. The father should he want this can also give his input.Although his wishes shouldn't be taken greater than the mother I think it's important that fathers are notified and be allowed to have their say. After all it is also his child the woman will be killing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    FFS such arguments aren't worth even talking about because people forget the essence of the argument and come out with silly things like this:

    (Original post by Rosnovski)
    but they can accept killing it?
    OBVIOUSLY not everybody believes they are "killing" something... people who abort a baby aren't heartless animals who butcher babies.
    in their opinion, it is not a baby but a mass of tissue.

    this is a debate that can't really be won because its purely about emotions and opinions without evidence or facts
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Pro choice. I believe that the rights of the mother override the rights of the foetus every single time, for every single situation. Adoption for me isn't a suitable alternative, i wonder how many children get adopted, and how many are just left to the side. I could live with myself for aborting a 2 month old clump of cells, i don't think i could live with myself if i had a baby, gave it up for adoption and that baby grew up parentless until the age of 16 and was left to fend for themselves for the rest of their lives with no family. No thanks, abortion seems to me, to be the kinder option.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)
    If a woman finds out there could be complications causing her to become partially blind, but if birth was induced the baby would likely survive, should she be forced to give birth? Is her eyesight or kidney function worth as much as that foetus' life?
    Again, the health of the mother is a legitimate issue, I never refuted that. I have a problem with aborters who are concerned about a "difficult life," or that "aren't ready," or other selfish claptrap. And remember, we're not balancing fetuses and women's rights. We're talking about babies' rights. At some point a fetus becomes a baby, right? I see no reason why that point should be at birth. Late term, there is a complete human being inside a woman, that much is indisputable. Where to draw the line between fetus and baby may be difficult, but it is certainly at a point before the actual day of birth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teigan)
    Because it's in the body of another living person. When it is born, therefore not biologically dependent on the woman that's when I think it becomes a distinct individual with rights.

    Having an abortion is dealing with the consequence. I don't think it's up to anyone but the couple concerned to say deem how best to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
    But again, why should that matter? I don't see a reason for denying rights to someone on the basis of their being dependent on someone else. Month-old babies are just as dependent. They may not have an umbilical cord, but why should that be an important distinction? Before substitutes were invented, babies were "biologically dependent" on breast milk, does that mean the woman has a right to withhold her body's ability to keep the child alive?

    Abortion is NOT dealing with the consequences. It is in a very real sense "aborting" the chain of events that began when you chose to have sex. Again, there are legitimate reasons to consider an abortion, but the fact that the pregnancy wasn't planned is not one of them. There are many, many loving homes that will be happy to adopt a child that would have been aborted otherwise. you can't reasonably think that not existing is better than having adoptive parents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sky_Dream)
    Pro choice. I believe that the rights of the mother override the rights of the foetus every single time, for every single situation. Adoption for me isn't a suitable alternative, i wonder how many children get adopted, and how many are just left to the side. I could live with myself for aborting a 2 month old clump of cells, i don't think i could live with myself if i had a baby, gave it up for adoption and that baby grew up parentless until the age of 16 and was left to fend for themselves for the rest of their lives with no family. No thanks, abortion seems to me, to be the kinder option.
    But when does a fetus become a child? certainly at that point the right to life would override the right to avoid a complicated life. Okay, so you're pro-choice at two months, what about 4, or 5?

    And by the way, there is a HUGE demand for newborn babies to adopt, they don't just get "left to the side."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pro-life.Every child has the right to live.It's not their fault you got pregnant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rosnovski)
    but they can accept killing it?
    I didnt mean the mother but yeah abortion would be easier than giving it away for some people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    9
    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!
    It becomes a "baby" when the sperm hits it anyways that's what pro-lifers always tell me :dontknow:
    I think it's a baby when it comes out but w/e

    Some people do! It's called Catholicism iirc :judge:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mexangel)
    I'm pro-life.Every child has the right to live.It's not their fault you got pregnant.
    True... but they aren't children yet... they're fetuses... in fact they technically fit all the qualifications of a parasite :holmes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BumperBo)
    True... but they aren't children yet... they're fetuses... in fact they technically fit all the qualifications of a parasite :holmes:
    So does a breastfeeding baby, technically.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    And by the way, there is a HUGE demand for newborn babies to adopt, they don't just get "left to the side."
    Then why are there so many unadopted children scattered around the world/in juvie?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    So does a breastfeeding baby, technically.
    But breastfeeding doesn't have any negative effect on the mother's health/biological fitness so nope! Really breastfeeding helps the mom... I hear it relieves the pressure built up...

    squish
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BumperBo)
    But breastfeeding doesn't have any negative effect on the mother's health/biological fitness so nope! Really breastfeeding helps the mom... I hear it relieves the pressure built up...

    squish
    Pregnancy isn't destructive either, women are designed to carry babies. It may be less convenient, sure, but that's about the extent of it (assuming the pregnancy goes normally of course).
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.