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:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Don, can I recommend some Peter Singer?

    The idea that it's DNA which make humans unique (Chimps share 98% of our DNA to give you a rough idea) rather than other human characteristics such as sentience, capacity for rational thought, a sense of self etc etc is fallacious.
    Recommending Don anything is futile. His wilful ignorance allows him to hold his stunted views. I assume he likes it that way? :dontknow:
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    third option

    and no I'm not going to debate it, nor add any further comments, so don't ask any further questions or try to challenge me.

    My opinion has never changed during all the debates about abortion I've been through on TSR, so debating it gets nobody anywhere. I've debated abortions on here many many times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-choice, not from any moral standpoint, but simply because I hate babies.

    EDIT: What if you're neither prolife or prochoice, but pro-abortion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Is that what you think having a child is like? It's the most important thing in life.
    :rolleyes: Well yes, I'm a human being and my life should come first.

    What about the mother's needs and desires in life?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    So the man doesn't have a duty of care, financially at least, to his child? Therefore the mother must provide sole financial support to a child that isn't solely hers. Is this morally right, considering it is the child who ultimately suffers as a result?
    Well if abortion is allowed under the guise of allowing women to secure their future, then why shouldn't men be allowed this right? If the choice of the existence is entirely down to the woman then its care should be entirely down to her. Is it morally right to allow a woman to kill the child, considering it is the child who ultimately suffer as a result?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Recommending Don anything is futile. His wilful ignorance allows him to hold his stunted views. I assume he likes it that way? :dontknow:
    Yeah, it's depressing to debate with people who won't allow evidence to change their mind, because it kind of undermines the whole point of a debate.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Is that what you think having a child is like? It's the most important thing in life.
    Says who? Its my idea of hell.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennh)
    A doctor is a maniac?


    Abortion is not "killing babies". Most often it's removing a blastocyst. And, if we're keeping a tally mark, I think mother nature is by far the worst "offender" of abortion.

    And whatever happened to the situations where it's the less painful thing to do, the more loving, the less "bad" thing to merely abort?

    And why on earth would terminating a blastocyst demand the death penalty? I think killing a human being is a "sick maniacal" thing to do.

    Don't bother quoting, I'm not going to reply.

    Dayum, you owned his arse :yes: :yes:

    Remind me to rep you tomorrow please
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmie19)
    Sex is more for pleasure now. And my 18 year mate has a baby now, from a relationship with a girl. I know 8 young mothers.

    Life isn't that black and white.
    Sex is more for pleasure because abortion exists. It is undeniable that the point of sex is to reproduce, don't be so surprised when you end up pregnant. I know tons of young mothers as well, so what? I might take up a new hobby that requires thousands of babies to die, you don't mind do you? I am afterall getting pleasure from it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Is that what you think having a child is like? It's the most important thing in life.
    According to you.

    edit: Voted pro-choice in all circumstances because I'm an evil, uncaring *******.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Well the fact is you can't pinpoint a time when it transfers from being a foetus to an actual baby. Nothing changes between the time you are allowed to have an abortion and a time you're not. In fact the only things that change from week one are it's size, development and age. By this rationale a baby is less of a life than a toddler. A womans right to autonomy can be preserved by not getting pregnant. I am pro-choice, women have the choice of whether or not to participate in sexual relations and get pregnant. You had your rights, and you chose to put them on the line for a bit of fleeting pleasure, why should a baby pay the price? Your friends are traumatised but they are dead. They are traumatised because it isn't just a clump of cells, I don't know anyone who has had a tumor removed and felt bad about it.
    They're traumatised for obvious reasons, I would say. I don't think them being traumatised is proof that abortion is wrong.

    'Well the fact is you can't pinpoint a time when it transfers from being a foetus to an actual baby'- yeah, I totally agree. What's your point? I still think that whether it's a baby or not my rights are more important that theirs.

    A womans right to autonomy can be preserved by not getting pregnant. Sure it can. It can also be preserved by the option of abortion. I think the woman's rights are so important that even if it's her fault she's pregnant this doesn't make any difference to them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Sex is more for pleasure because abortion exists. It is undeniable that the point of sex is to reproduce, don't be so surprised when you end up pregnant. I know tons of young mothers as well, so what? I might take up a new hobby that requires thousands of babies to die, you don't mind do you? I am afterall getting pleasure from it.
    Umm... that's how some doctors get paid. And they're pro choice. It's their job and they must believe in abortion to do it.

    That's why unwanted babies are called mistakes. Harsh I know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Sex is more for pleasure because abortion exists. It is undeniable that the point of sex is to reproduce, don't be so surprised when you end up pregnant. I know tons of young mothers as well, so what? I might take up a new hobby that requires thousands of babies to die, you don't mind do you? I am afterall getting pleasure from it.
    It is undeniable that the point of sex is to reproduce- says who? Unless you're religious this has no grounding. For me, the point of sex is solely for pleasure. For others, it maybe for reproduction.

    S'only a 'baby' in your opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Says who? Its my idea of hell.
    Nature?

    It's what our bodies are designed to do. It's what we grow up to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Well if abortion is allowed under the guise of allowing women to secure their future, then why shouldn't men be allowed this right? If the choice of the existence is entirely down to the woman then its care should be entirely down to her. Is it morally right to allow a woman to kill the child, considering it is the child who ultimately suffer as a result?
    You are working on the assumption that a foetus can be deemed a 'child'. Also, there is a vast difference between the potential of a life, and an existing one. The existence of a foetus is the mother's choice, but the existence of a child is not. Therefore both parents have a financial obligation to the child, because although the mother is more likely to adopt the position of primary carer, both parents have equal responsiblity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Nature?

    It's what our bodies are designed to do. It's what we grow up to do.
    So by your logic, does it follow that women have a moral duty to become pregnant, because it's "nature" (possibly the most badly defined term in human discourse ever)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    They're traumatised for obvious reasons, I would say. I don't think them being traumatised is proof that abortion is wrong.

    'Well the fact is you can't pinpoint a time when it transfers from being a foetus to an actual baby'- yeah, I totally agree. What's your point? I still think that whether it's a baby or not my rights are more important that theirs.

    A womans right to autonomy can be preserved by not getting pregnant. Sure it can. It can also be preserved by the option of abortion. I think the woman's rights are so important that even if it's her fault she's pregnant this doesn't make any difference to them.
    So it should be ok for abortion upto 8 months 3 weeks? What exactly are you preserving by allowing women to have abortions? Getting pregnant isn't a life long disease, it's a temporary thing, a blip on a life line. Fair enough if you don't want keep the baby once it's born, but until that point you have lost the right not to have a big stomach for 9 months.

    If there is an option for preserving the made up right of a autonomy (whatever that means?), then the option that requires killing babies should be removed. Like I said, more women die with abortions legal than illegal. More women end up needing counselling for having babies killed than having the baby to full term. Because abortion exists women now have to choose between a career or a child, whereas if it didn't exist businesses would be forced to accomodate women who want to have children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Nature?

    It's what our bodies are designed to do. It's what we grow up to do.
    You sad, little man.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Nature?

    It's what our bodies are designed to do. It's what we grow up to do.
    Erm ok, so what about women and men who are infertile? Not everyone can reproduce, so its not nature who tells us to have children.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    So by your logic, does it follow that women have a moral duty to become pregnant, because it's "nature" (possibly the most badly defined term in human discourse ever)?
    NO, I wouldn't say that but they (and men as well) have a duty to regard the process of the development of human life with reference and respect.
 
 
 
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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.