Abortion Watch

Poll: 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%
Muffinz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#321
Report 8 years ago
#321
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?
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#322
Report 8 years ago
#322
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#323
Report 8 years ago
#323
(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.
0
quote
reply
SpamBa
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#324
Report 8 years ago
#324
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#325
Report 8 years ago
#325
(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.
0
quote
reply
SpamBa
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#326
Report 8 years ago
#326
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#327
Report 8 years ago
#327
(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.
0
quote
reply
tinktinktinkerbell
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#328
Report 8 years ago
#328
(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
0
quote
reply
SpamBa
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#329
Report 8 years ago
#329
(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.
0
quote
reply
Square
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#330
Report 8 years ago
#330
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
0
quote
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#331
Report 8 years ago
#331
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#332
Report 8 years ago
#332
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#333
Report 8 years ago
#333
(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.
0
quote
reply
tinktinktinkerbell
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#334
Report 8 years ago
#334
(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:
0
quote
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#335
Report 8 years ago
#335
(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'?
0
quote
reply
PeeWeeDan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#336
Report 8 years ago
#336
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#337
Report 8 years ago
#337
(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.
0
quote
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#338
Report 8 years ago
#338
(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.
0
quote
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#339
Report 8 years ago
#339
(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?
0
quote
reply
PeeWeeDan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#340
Report 8 years ago
#340
(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.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (149)
27.85%
No (386)
72.15%

Watched Threads

View All