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 Elipsis)
    It isn't fetus vs the mother. A fetus has a right to life more than a mother has a right not to have an enlarged stomach for a few months. How can you say that a womans right to not feel temporary discomfort is more important than a childs right to live?
    Think about this. Say I own a nice house with a spare room that I never ever use. A homeless girl sneaks in and tries to live in the spare room. Do I have the right to kick her out? Of course I do. The homeless person living in my spare room would probably cause very little inconvenience to me, and it would be a massive benefit to her. However, my right to my property trumps her right to live safely in the warmth, without fearing violence and abuse on the street. Maybe someone's chasing her and she needs shelter. Maybe she's ill and the cold will make her more ill. It would be very nice of me to let her stay. However, am I obliged to? Should I be forced to? Absolutely not, if I choose not to have her in my spare room I have a perfect right to kick her out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will.)
    Up to the women, proper consultation with a doctor should be compulsary though.
    It is, as is counselling pre-abortion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    Don't denegrate your own argument by being stupid. You and I both know that's not all being pregnant is about.

    It's not simply an enlarged stomach, that's almost laughable. You make it sound like being pregnant is like having bad gas.

    All the complications of pregnany, leaking milk, your body being absolutely changed (my mother has had pretty bad acid reflux since she had my sister, over 10 years ago), increased risk of prolapse, blood pressure etc etc etc etc... there's so many aspects of being pregnant.

    And take that asides, loads of women who give their kids up for adoption have alot of psychological torment... is she happy? Does she look like me? Did her family treat her well?

    And then add this kid, growing up in different foster homes, because the adoption system in this country is frankly ****.
    Of course pregnancy comes with its risks. However it is hardly ever these risks that women are trying to side step by having an abortion, because 99% of them go onto have children at a later date. Of course giving up a child messes people up, but so does killing it, but one route ends up with the child having a life and another doesn't, so I know which one I prefer. And although the care system is rather poor with regards to getting children above the age of about 3-5 adopted, there is a massive que around the block for healthy babies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    And by late term, I mean second or third trimester late, really.
    So from the 13th week? Before the woman has even discovered whether the foetus has an abnormality incompatible with life???

    Also you are aware that currently abortion in the third trimester is illegal, unless there are exceptional medical reasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    So what is the difference between 8 months and 20 weeks then?
    Viability
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    whilst I get that you're trying to hit home with your message, did you really HAVE to post that picture? I'm currently pregnant and it has seriously churned my stomach seeing that.
    Is that your fifth?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    So if you kill a baby you should get less of a sentence than if you kill a todler? If this was the case each year that we lived the value of our lives would increase.

    What about this hypothetical situation; someone in a temporary coma to allow their brain to go down from swelling. They are not sentient or viable. Why should killing them if you are paying for the bed carry a prison sentence?
    Well first off, on your first point, I consider there to be a minimum level of sentience necessary for considering something a human person, rather than the value of a human being contingent on the amount of sentience they have, it's a threshold value. One of the reasons animals aren't considered persons is because they don't possess the same level of sentience as humans usually do. In the same way, if aliens landed and they had exactly the same level of sentience as human beings, there would be a good argument for having them considered to be people, rather than resting the definition of a person on the possession of human DNA.

    Second off, the person in your hypothetical scenario is sentient, because they originally possessed sentience and are likely to return to a sentient state. All theories of sentience allow for a human to temporarily lack sentience and still remain a person, because when we sleep we lack the sentience we have when we are awake.

    Regarding viability, well I think the thing in question here is the fact that, by providing an individual with medical treatment, you are consenting to the burden of keeping them alive and this imposes a duty on you to care for them. This isn't equivalent with someone who becomes pregnant unintentionally (even if you argue that intercourse is indirect consent to carry a foetus to term, which is dodgy, it's still not the same as the direct consent involved in giving an individual medical treatment, and I don't consider indirect consent strong enough grounds).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    whilst I get that you're trying to hit home with your message, did you really HAVE to post that picture? I'm currently pregnant and it has seriously churned my stomach seeing that.
    Yeah, but what was posted before was just as sickening, really. Sorry about that. I'll put spoiler tags on it. :sadnod:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Think about this. Say I own a nice house with a spare room that I never ever use. A homeless girl sneaks in and tries to live in the spare room. Do I have the right to kick her out? Of course I do. The homeless person living in my spare room would probably cause very little inconvenience to me, and it would be a massive benefit to her. However, my right to my property trumps her right to live safely in the warmth, without fearing violence and abuse on the street. Maybe someone's chasing her and she needs shelter. Maybe she's ill and the cold will make her more ill. It would be very nice of me to let her stay. However, am I obliged to? Should I be forced to? Absolutely not, if I choose not to have her in my spare room I have a perfect right to kick her out.
    Really really crap analogy there. Having a child is the equivalent of giving the homeless girl a 9 month all inclusive contract with £0 pm rent. You would not have a hope in hell of kicking her out in this scenario, and you would be prosecuted. I think you would almost certainly go down for at least 10 years if you went as far as killing her.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Is that your fifth?
    no but if it was it shouldn't make a difference to you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thejadedwords)
    I don't think I could have an abortion myself, although I see why other people might.

    It really bothers me when people say that it's the woman's choice, because it's her body. I think men should have just as much say in it - I don't think women would be too impressed if a man aborted a baby they wanted. It just seems sad that because the women has to physically carry the child, psychological effects on men are often ignored. Do you not think a man might mourn an aborted child, as a woman might? Just something to think about for those from the 'it's MY body' school of thought.
    Do you then believe if a man wants the child, a women should not be allowed to get the abortion?

    Just trying to discuss the fresher stuff, not the recycled is it or is it not murder material.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Well first off, on your first point, I consider there to be a minimum level of sentience necessary for considering something a human person, rather than the value of a human being contingent on the amount of sentience they have, it's a threshold value. One of the reasons animals aren't considered persons is because they don't possess the same level of sentience as humans usually do. In the same way, if aliens landed and they had exactly the same level of sentience as human beings, there would be a good argument for having them considered to be people, rather than resting the definition of a person on the possession of human DNA.

    Second off, the person in your hypothetical scenario is sentient, because they originally possessed sentience and are likely to return to a sentient state. All theories of sentience allow for a human to temporarily lack sentience and still remain a person, because when we sleep we lack the sentience we have when we are awake.

    Regarding viability, well I think the thing in question here is the fact that, by providing an individual with medical treatment, you are consenting to the burden of keeping them alive and this imposes a duty on you to care for them. This isn't equivalent with someone who becomes pregnant unintentionally (even if you argue that intercourse is indirect consent to carry a foetus to term, which is dodgy, it's still not the same as the direct consent involved in giving an individual medical treatment, and I don't consider indirect consent strong enough grounds).
    Firstly, I would say that many animals have a lot more sentience than a new born baby that can't even open its eyes. Never the less we don't eat those babies. Secondly having had sentience doesn't matter, the focus here is that they will once again be sentient. If you would like to make a better hypothetical situation here you go: a new born baby has brain swelling and gets put straight into a coma. Should the parents be prosecuted if they bludgeon it's brains in and rip off its arms, then suck it out of its incubator down a toilet?

    There is no reason to say that having sex isn't a 100% direct consentual agreement to have a baby and nuture that baby til term.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    no but if it was it shouldn't make a difference to you
    Calm down. I was just interested. Wierd, you're not usually a biatch, must be the hormones.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Really really crap analogy there. Having a child is the equivalent of giving the homeless girl a 9 month all inclusive contract with £0 pm rent. You would not have a hope in hell of kicking her out in this scenario, and you would be prosecuted. I think you would almost certainly go down for at least 10 years if you went as far as killing her.
    Elaborate please? Just because a woman has sex that doesn't mean she consents to having a baby. The equivilent in the analogy would probably be me leaving the door open for a minute and the homeless girl slipping in.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I personally think abortion is wrong. I wouldn't ever have one. I do however believe that in extreme cases such as rape etc that people should have the option. But for the everyday people that just forget to take the pill or don't make the effort to use contraception really isn't a good excuse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    If you would like to make a better hypothetical situation here you go: a new born baby has brain swelling and gets put straight into a coma. Should the parents be prosecuted if they bludgeon it's brains in and rip off its arms, then suck it out of its incubator down a toilet?
    Yes, because it's not infringing on their rights anymore. Other people are willing to look after it, so it's not their problem. When the baby is inside your uterus, it is your problem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna Cannon)
    I personally think abortion is wrong. I wouldn't ever have one. I do however believe that in extreme cases such as rape etc that people should have the option. But for the everyday people that just forget to take the pill or don't make the effort to use contraception really isn't a good excuse.
    What, to you, differentiates the two cases?

    Again, trying to discuss the fresher stuff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Elaborate please? Just because a woman has sex that doesn't mean she consents to having a baby. The equivilent in the analogy would probably be me leaving the door open for a minute and the homeless girl slipping in.
    The biological purpose of having sex is to produce a baby... It's more like signing the 9 month contract and waving it in front of homeless people who are holding pens.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Calm down. I was just interested. Wierd, you're not usually a biatch, must be the hormones.
    sorry - usually when people say something like "is it your fifth" it's more of criticism as to how many kids I have.

    yes honestly I am rather hormonal lately.

    It's my third (and last) baby, since you're wondering. We're not having any more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Yes, because it's not infringing on their rights anymore. Other people are willing to look after it, so it's not their problem. When the baby is inside your uterus, it is your problem.
    No baby. No problem.

    "It'll be your dirty little secret that will eat at your soul" - my quote

    Women should be allowed to make as many abortion as they like, but none of them should be guilt free before or after the procedures.
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.