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

Abortion Watch

  • View Poll Results: What are you?
    Pro Choice in all circumstances
    91
    41.94%
    Pro Choice in most circumstances
    68
    31.34%
    Pro Life in all circumstances
    14
    6.45%
    Pro Life in most circumstances
    44
    20.28%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-choice in all circumstances, although people really should be more careful with contraception. For example, is it really so hard to set a reminder on your phone to take the pill?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    How are you, an atheist, so brainwashed with religious mumbo jumbo that you should oppose abortions? Scientific analysis of early-term foetuses show them to be nothing more than a lump of cells, and as such, getting rid of it couldn't possibly constitute murder.
    You have to stop with all this "religious BS" crap, and realise that I oppose abortion not because I'm a silly Christian, but because it is a human life. The heart starts beating after 6 weeks, and even before that it is developing a brain, bones and other such features. It is a human.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpamBa)
    Well I can't stand people who think the rights of a potential life form override those of an actual human being.
    It's not a potential life - it's a life. And no one's rights override another's, so the mother's "right to ownership of her body" theory cannot apply either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    It's not a potential life - it's a life. And no one's rights override another's, so the mother's "right to ownership of her body" theory cannot apply either.
    Well if the mother says that she does not want to continue the pregnancy then the 'rights' of the mother are in conflict with the 'rights' of the unborn child. In that situation, one person's right has to override another's as they conflict. I put the mother first, you put the unborn child first. You can't put both first.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpamBa)
    Well if the mother says that she does not want to continue the pregnancy then the 'rights' of the mother are in conflict with the 'rights' of the unborn child. In that situation, one person's right has to override another's as they conflict. I put the mother first, you put the unborn child first. You can't put both first.
    The thing is, the mother does not have the right to kill someone. No one's rights are being overridden here, as the mother does not have any rights over aborting the child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    The thing is, the mother does not have the right to kill someone. No one's rights are being overridden here, as the mother does not have any rights over aborting the child.
    Well the mother, like all people, has the right to choose what happens with her own body. The foetus is not capable of living separately from its mother and therefore is a part of her body.

    Rights are being overridden: you are saying the unborn child's right to life overrides the mother's right to control of her own body. Both are rights, whichever one you choose to see as superior.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpamBa)
    Well the mother, like all people, has the right to choose what happens with her own body. The foetus is not capable of living separately from its mother and therefore is a part of her body.
    A 2 week old baby is incapable of living on its own too. So it can be killed at whim too, surely?

    Also, whether it is incapable of living separately or not, it is still living.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpamBa)
    Well if the mother says that she does not want to continue the pregnancy then the 'rights' of the mother are in conflict with the 'rights' of the unborn child. In that situation, one person's right has to override another's as they conflict. I put the mother first, you put the unborn child first. You can't put both first.

    im pleased you put 'rights' << like that because the fetus upto a certain point has no rights

    also regarding the 2 week old baby being incapable of living on its own, thats true but the 2 week old baby can BREATH, the fetus upto a certain point can not breath on its own therefore needs the mother, therefore is part of the womans body
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    A 2 week old baby is incapable of living on its own too. So it can be killed at whim too, surely?

    Also, whether it is incapable of living separately or not, it is still living.
    That is not quite what I meant with regards to being able to live on its own. A two week old baby, if its mother dies, will not automatically die itself if taken care of by someone else, because the mother's life is not directly connected to that of the child.
    If a woman who is pregnant dies, so will the baby. It is incapable of living separately from the mother; essentially it is leeching from her. If it is not capable of living alone, it is not a separate life form.

    And you conveniently ignored my point that someone's rights must be compromised if you deem the unborn child has more of a 'right' to life than the mother does to her own body.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't quite see what the problem is putting said child up for adoption - is abortion now just to save a mother 9 months inconvenience because either her or her partner did not sort out contraception?

    "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    You have to stop with all this "religious BS" crap, and realise that I oppose abortion not because I'm a silly Christian, but because it is a human life. The heart starts beating after 6 weeks, and even before that it is developing a brain, bones and other such features. It is a human.
    So, after 5 weeks when it has no beating heart, no brain activity and anything else, you don't mind it? If you still do, how in any way could it be considered a human? It's human life, yes, but so is a genital wart.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    So, after 5 weeks when it has no beating heart, no brain activity and anything else, you don't mind it? If you still do, how in any way could it be considered a human? It's human life, yes, but so is a genital wart.
    I support abortions before 5 weeks, as long as a number of criteria are met.

    1 - Both parents agree. There may be an issue of "body sovereignty" on the mother's part, but the father is the father too. He would be responsible for the upbringing of the child just as much as the mother would.

    2 - Both parents attend a mandatory hearing to present their case for an abortion. One judge, one medical expert and lawyers will be present.

    3 - The mother and father can both look the abortionist straight in the eye and honestly tell him/her she wants an abortion.

    4 - If the mother is under 18, she will have to be accompanied by her parents. As will the father if he is under 18. The mother has to take responsibility for her actions, and accept the consequences. She has to tell her parents. If she doesn't want to do this, she should have postponed sex until after her 18th birthday.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpamBa)
    And you conveniently ignored my point that someone's rights must be compromised if you deem the unborn child has more of a 'right' to life than the mother does to her own body.
    Again, the mother does not have her right to bodily ownership extend to taking the right to life off another.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Square)
    I don't quite see what the problem is putting said child up for adoption - is abortion now just to save a mother 9 months inconvenience because either her or her partner did not sort out contraception?

    "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan


    i wish people would research pregnancy before comenting, do you realise what a woman has to go through when shes pregnant, its more than just an inconvenience, what woman is going to do that for 9 months when she doesnt want it

    and you assume said couple didnt 'sort out contraception':rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I support abortions before 5 weeks, as long as a number of criteria are met.

    1 - Both parents agree. There may be an issue of "body sovereignty" on the mother's part, but the father is the father too. He would be responsible for the upbringing of the child just as much as the mother would.

    2 - Both parents attend a mandatory hearing to present their case for an abortion. One judge, one medical expert and lawyers will be present.

    3 - The mother and father can both look the abortionist straight in the eye and honestly tell him/her she wants an abortion.

    4 - If the mother is under 18, she will have to be accompanied by her parents. As will the father if he is under 18. The mother has to take responsibility for her actions, and accept the consequences. She has to tell her parents. If she doesn't want to do this, she should have postponed sex until after her 18th birthday.
    Some libertarian you are. If it's a life, it should have legal rights and they should be protected. If it's not a life and doesn't have rights, why involve the judge, doctors and next door neighbour for a 'mandatory hearing'?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    You have to stop with all this "religious BS" crap, and realise that I oppose abortion not because I'm a silly Christian, but because it is a human life. The heart starts beating after 6 weeks, and even before that it is developing a brain, bones and other such features. It is a human.
    I'm going to have to disagree here mate. Until the foetus has functioning emotions, feelings and thoughts i don't think it is a human whatsoever, just as killing 30 skin cells is not a major big deal nor is killing the 30 cells of a blastocyte. The same applies for a human liver. If it doesn't think and feel it is not yet a human.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Some libertarian you are. If it's a life, it should have legal rights and they should be protected. If it's not a life and doesn't have rights, why involve the judge, doctors and next door neighbour for a 'mandatory hearing'?
    Thanks. :rolleyes:

    It is a life after 5 weeks, as it has a beating heart and is forming a brain etc.

    Before 5 weeks, as you yourself said, it is nothing but a bunch of cells.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    I'm going to have to disagree here mate. Until the foetus has functioning emotions, feelings and thoughts i don't think it is a human whatsoever, just as killing 30 skin cells is not a major big deal nor is killing the 30 cells of a blastocyte. The same applies for a human liver. If it doesn't think and feel it is not yet a human.
    Someone in a vegetative state, or who has severe mental disabilities, does not have fully functioning emotions, feelings or thoughts - still alive though.

    But a foetus after 5 weeks is more than 30 skin cells. It has a beating heart, a brain and a spinal cord. It's a human.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Thanks. :rolleyes:

    It is a life after 5 weeks, as it has a beating heart and is forming a brain etc.

    Before 5 weeks, as you yourself said, it is nothing but a bunch of cells.
    Why should you have to have a mandatory hearing for a bunch of cells? I don't see a medical doctor and a judge before I have a ****, so why should you have one before an abortion of something that, as you've admitted, has no rights?

    And why 5 weeks?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Someone in a vegetative state, or who has severe mental disabilities, does not have fully functioning emotions, feelings or thoughts - still alive though.

    But a foetus after 5 weeks is more than 30 skin cells. It has a beating heart, a brain and a spinal cord. It's a human.
    The brain in a foetus is not advanced enough to feel, nor to think, nor to have emotions. It's not yet human until around 28 weeks. And people in vegetative states can still feel and think. Although I believe in euthanasia, so take that in mind.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 6, 2010
  • 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
  • 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.