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 vander Beth)
    Do you then 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.
    Oooo interesting...

    I still think it's the woman's choice to have the abortion, but if the man doesn't want the baby, or anything to do with it once it's born, I don't think he should be made to pay for said baby
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Yes, and your temporary rights are far less important than a babies entire life. Considering your championing the only reason to have an abortion as wanting to not go through pregnancy is the physical labour of it all your argument that this is their reasoning is rather defeated when you consider most people who have abortions end up having a child at a later stage (if they can). The main reason for having an abortion is that you don't want to ruin your life in any way, which usually happens post child birth. And as you have said they are not infringing anyones rights then, so women should have to take their children to term.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The reason why women are allowed to choose whether or not to have an abortion and a man isn't is because society percieves they suffer more from having a child than a man does. It is under this pretence that I think it should, in our current society, be more down to women to keep themselves unpregnant. At the end of the day I don't think men or women should be having sex with anyone they don't intend to have a baby with.

    But if a man doesn't want to be financially responsible (and depending on his morals) emotionally responsible for a child, surely, he should be as careful with who he has sex with as a woman who doesn't want to end up pregnant and single.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vander Beth)
    What, to you, differentiates the two cases?

    Again, trying to discuss the fresher stuff.
    well (appologies if i have read this wrong) One is the carelessness of one or both parties. the other is an act of violence where a victim is not at fault for the pregnancy that may occur from the act. I think that the two examples are completely different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    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.
    I don't criticise you, from what I see in your sig every so often you seem like a really good mum. Can I take this opportunity to bet you £100 that it isn't your last baby?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vander Beth)
    Do you then 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.
    I was hoping someone would ask this, because it's a good point
    Ultimately, no, I don't think a woman should be forced to have a baby because its father wants it - that would be psychologically destroying, and in reality would just end up with women abusing their bodies in order to have miscarriages and the like. But I often hear about girls - especially my age, actually - having abortions without even telling their boyfriends, let alone talking it through with them to find out what they want. It makes me so sad that often the guy's feelings aren't even taken into account. There's no "should not be allowed" to it, and no law I'd change - just a strong opinion that a woman shouldn't think of it as her almighty right to make the decision on her own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    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.
    What does 'biological purpose' even mean? Like I said, we're not designed, so sex isn't 'meant' for anything except what people want it to mean.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    But if a man doesn't want to be financially responsible (and depending on his morals) emotionally responsible for a child, surely, he should be as careful with who he has sex with as a woman who doesn't want to end up pregnant and single.
    You are mixing up the arguments lol. Men would have this responsibility if women had this responsibility. At present women have the right to terminate to protect their futures, so men should have a similar option available to protect their futures.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazyhelicopter)
    Oooo interesting...

    I still think it's the woman's choice to have the abortion, but if the man doesn't want the baby, or anything to do with it once it's born, I don't think he should be made to pay for said baby
    if, say I was in that position where my partner wanted the child yet i did not (won't ever happen) then I would discuss situations if i were not ready to have a child or believe that the timing was poor etc then i would go ahead with it. Raising a child takes both parents to be in the right mind for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    What does 'biological purpose' even mean? Like I said, we're not designed, so sex isn't 'meant' for anything except what people want it to mean.
    It isn't about being designed. Men and women in their biological forms create children when they have sex. It is a pretty fundamental thing that has been happening since the start of time, tune in!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Yes, and your temporary rights are far less important than a babies entire life. Considering your championing the only reason to have an abortion as wanting to not go through pregnancy is the physical labour of it all your argument that this is their reasoning is rather defeated when you consider most people who have abortions end up having a child at a later stage (if they can). The main reason for having an abortion is that you don't want to ruin your life in any way, which usually happens post child birth. And as you have said they are not infringing anyones rights then, so women should have to take their children to term.
    Absolutely my rights to my body are more important than the foetus's rights to my body. It doesn't matter if it's only a temporary inconvenience (remember the analogy with the homeless girl?). I don't need any more reason to be allowed an abortion other than 'it's my body'. That's it, that's all that matters. Nobody should or can force me to let something live off my body when I don't want it do. I don't need any other reason.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazyhelicopter)
    Oooo interesting...

    I still think it's the woman's choice to have the abortion, but if the man doesn't want the baby, or anything to do with it once it's born, I don't think he should be made to pay for said baby
    I think that's more of the other way around, if the man doesn't want the baby, should he be able to make her get an abortion?

    So you think that the man should be able to waive his rights, as it were, to the child?

    I won't say if I would support this or not morally or legally as with everything else, but I can see some problems with it legally, as in how would they go about making it into a law.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I don't criticise you, from what I see in your sig every so often you seem like a really good mum. Can I take this opportunity to bet you £100 that it isn't your last baby?
    haha I'd take you up on that except I'd not be able to track you down to claim the money :p:

    Neither he, nor I, want any more after this one. He wanted to stop at 2 but I wanted a third, but I'm fine with stopping after this one.
    We'd need a bigger house for any more kids for a start, which isn't an option.
    We're already getting a bigger car to fit 3 kiddy car seats in (picking the car up tomorrow :woo: - can't wait for my new shiny car hehe) so that's just about as far as we can stretch to at the moment.

    I'd not have the time or patience for more than 3 kids I don't think. You get past a certain number and then it becomes hard to give each one the attention they need, so 3 is my limit.

    It'll be nice to be in my 30s and get a bit of "me" time back when the kids are in school, and not have to worry about nappy changes and night feeds

    I love my kids, but enough is enough lol.


    sorry everybody for going way Off Topic there! :o:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    At last, a subject no one has debated before!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    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.
    I'd argue that having had sentience does matter. A day old pre-embryo has no more capacity for sentience than the sperm and egg it used to be. Now all sperm and eggs can potentially be sentient, but there's a consequence here that's undesirable, namely that bringing every potentially sentient being into existence would require the female portion of the human race to be permanently pregnant, so that these potentially sentient beings can come into existence. In relation to animals, well then maybe we have an argument for vegetarianism, or at least minimisation of animal cruelty.

    Now what distinguishes a person who is asleep, or undergoing anaesthetic due to an operation, from a sperm and an egg? It's the fact that, one had sentience prior to their non sentience, and one didn't.

    Regarding the new born baby, by virtue of the fact that they chose to bring it to term when they had the option not to, that this creates obligations upon them to care for it.

    This isn't really comparable to a woman who takes every precaution necessary to avoid pregnancy in terms of contraception and still falls pregnant. By virtue of the fact that she was using contraception, it's fairly evident that she didn't consent to the pregnancy in question, and the absence of consent means that she has no obligation to sacrifice the use of her organs to sustain that child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Absolutely my rights to my body are more important than the foetus's rights to my body. It doesn't matter if it's only a temporary inconvenience (remember the analogy with the homeless girl?). I don't need any more reason to be allowed an abortion other than 'it's my body'. That's it, that's all that matters. Nobody should or can force me to let something live off my body when I don't want it do. I don't need any other reason.
    I hope you go to hell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Absolutely my rights to my body are more important than the foetus's rights to my body. It doesn't matter if it's only a temporary inconvenience (remember the analogy with the homeless girl?). I don't need any more reason to be allowed an abortion other than 'it's my body'. That's it, that's all that matters. Nobody should or can force me to let something live off my body when I don't want it do. I don't need any other reason.
    I have already refuted your homeless girl analogy. Getting pregnant = creating a control for 9 months free living in your house, and running past homeless people who could sign it really easily as you run past.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    It isn't about being designed. Men and women in their biological forms create children when they have sex. It is a pretty fundamental thing that has been happening since the start of time, tune in!
    Yeah, but this has nothing to do with 'design' or 'purpose' (both your words). 'Men and women in their biological forms sometimes create children when they have sex' is a totally different concept to 'Men and women in their biological forms agree to have children every time they have sex'. I have sex, but I don't- and shouldn't have to- agree to have a child every time I do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I have already refuted your homeless girl analogy. Getting pregnant = creating a control for 9 months free living in your house, and running past homeless people who could sign it really easily as you run past.
    No, getting pregnant= leaving the door open slightly for a minute and a homeless person sneaking in. Nobody agrees to getting pregnant when they have sex. I don't know where you got this assumption from.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    I hope you go to hell.
    Being an atheist, that means nothing to me, but nice to know you can't form a coherent counter-argument.
 
 
 
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.