Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Even if we to agree the foetus was a living being, it does not mean it has right above the Mother or society.
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Abortion debate (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter thaoroxy2001
- Start date
- Status
musik_junky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 93
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
If the foetus was a living being, then we are comparing the LIFE of a living being with the economic position of another. Ofcourse the former should be above the latter! A life (or potential life) is priceless. Btw. I am NOT religious. I dont think abortion is wrong because Jesus or Allah said it was. Im just applying common sense here.Comrade nathan said:
K
katie_tully
Guest
See. "If" the foetus was a living being. Your argument therefore is inherently flawed. The foetus depends on the mother for life, why should it be put before her well being? Both physically, mentally, financially, etc, etc.musik_junky said:
musik_junky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 93
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
I answered this already! As for the "IF", even if it isn't a living being, it is a potential life. According to the law it is a living thing anyway.katie_tully said:
K
katie_tully
Guest
Oh really wise one. It isn't considered a living thing by the law until it is late stage. Late stage abortions are already illegal, unless the foetus has a medical condition.
i think abortion is completely wrong, you are killing a live human!! its murder!! but the laws are there and no everyone has the same opinion as me so i doubt they will be changed, but people should seriously be more careful. carelessness is not an excuse for ending someones life.
K
katie_tully
Guest
I don't even know where to begin with you. Perhaps I'm wasting my time.stacey** said:
The laws aren't going to be changed. More careful? Are you insinuating that all pregnancies are the result of irresponsible behaviour? You do of course realise even women with their tubes tied have become pregnant. You aren't killing a live human, because it isn't live. A foetus at 12 weeks is dependant on the mother for life, it cannot exist outside the womb as a single entity. Stop putting its so called rights before the rights and welfare of the mother. The real live person.
AlleyCat
Singing me and Julio
i believe that the current laws should remain.
there are many many women who are finacially independent, relatively wealthy, old enough to be responsible for another, and their pregnancy isnt a result of rape or freak occurence (like a woman with her tubes tied falling pregnant) who have abortions simply because it interferes with their comfortable lifestyle.
people preach to these women about the sin of the murder of their unborn child etc etc, but i think in this case, if the mother has made a decision to have an abortion without a clear reason, they must inherently lack the maturity to carry and raise a child. if a woman was to have this mindset and for some reason carry and keep the child, i believe it would eventually be mistreatedand therefore their abortion wasnt a bad thing.
that being said i once saw a video of an acid-burned foetus crying and it shook me to the core. i would now think long and hard before making the decision to abort or keep the child.
i also think we have to discuss the issue of teenage pregnancy as well as that of abortion. why is it that so many teenage girls become pregnant? id it due to lack of education, or (which is more worrying) pressure from the men they have sex with to bypass contraception. i myself know of two girls in my year at the moment who are pregnant and are carrying their babies to full term. with the hsc coming up and their morning sickness and cramps a worry, this issue is quite serious.
PS sorry if i got a bit off topic, but the issue is not clear cut, but multi facetted.
there are many many women who are finacially independent, relatively wealthy, old enough to be responsible for another, and their pregnancy isnt a result of rape or freak occurence (like a woman with her tubes tied falling pregnant) who have abortions simply because it interferes with their comfortable lifestyle.
people preach to these women about the sin of the murder of their unborn child etc etc, but i think in this case, if the mother has made a decision to have an abortion without a clear reason, they must inherently lack the maturity to carry and raise a child. if a woman was to have this mindset and for some reason carry and keep the child, i believe it would eventually be mistreatedand therefore their abortion wasnt a bad thing.
that being said i once saw a video of an acid-burned foetus crying and it shook me to the core. i would now think long and hard before making the decision to abort or keep the child.
i also think we have to discuss the issue of teenage pregnancy as well as that of abortion. why is it that so many teenage girls become pregnant? id it due to lack of education, or (which is more worrying) pressure from the men they have sex with to bypass contraception. i myself know of two girls in my year at the moment who are pregnant and are carrying their babies to full term. with the hsc coming up and their morning sickness and cramps a worry, this issue is quite serious.
PS sorry if i got a bit off topic, but the issue is not clear cut, but multi facetted.
erawamai
Retired. Gone fishing.
The current Catholic Health minister refuses to allow the RU 486 drug. A safer, cleaner, non surgical drug for early term abortions. Allmost everyother country in the western world allows it.AlleyCat said:
http://www.ru486.com/topics/articles/article_73.asp
month after pill etc.
-------
Perhaps one reason not to vote for the Liberal government. Safter non surgical abortions are not in their interest.
Last edited:
Serius
Beyond Godlike
yeah i definetely dont agree with the current abortion laws... but i sort of see the necessity. for that reason i say that the laws should be changed or made stricter yet i have no idea how my ideals could be acheived.
Note that my stance on abortion is not an ultimate stance on everything. I understand that abortions are necessary in some cases such as if it threatened the mothers health... yet i fail to see how its the mothers "right" to kill a human just because that human is dependant on the mother for life. Worst case scenario for me is some pregnamt girl on a whim or during an emotional swing that is normal for pregnant women decides to have an abortion on a whim or on some emotional reason. Abortions should never be taken lightly.
Another of my grave fears is being the father of a child... and the mother decided to kill the baby... me being a man in todays society ofcourse has no say on the abortion which is basically a load of crap. If males are given equal responsability in regards to childcare payments and looking after the kid then they should also be given equal responsability in the decisson to have the child. Yes i realise it is the womans body,
But did it not take both an ova AND a sperm to created the child?
is it not both the mans and the womans unborn baby?
this is what i fail to understand. Iam usually a rational person. I tend not to overeact or act emotionally...probably something to do with how i was raised. But the truth is that if some bitch decided to abort a child that is both mine and hers... I would honnestly kill her in cold blood. I am usually a pretty empathic person, but i would have a lot of difficulty seeing past the obvious issue of " omfg! she just had my baby killed!". Just the loss of the future experiences with the baby and the opertunities it could have had at a good life would drive me over the edge.
It isnt right to kill a baby without a damned good excuse. accidents dont happen. Iam not one of those conservative Christians who beleive sex is only for your wife... but i do think that if you arent emotionally stable enough to have a baby should an "accident"happen... then you shouldnt be opening your legs like a damned whore.
Note that my stance on abortion is not an ultimate stance on everything. I understand that abortions are necessary in some cases such as if it threatened the mothers health... yet i fail to see how its the mothers "right" to kill a human just because that human is dependant on the mother for life. Worst case scenario for me is some pregnamt girl on a whim or during an emotional swing that is normal for pregnant women decides to have an abortion on a whim or on some emotional reason. Abortions should never be taken lightly.
Another of my grave fears is being the father of a child... and the mother decided to kill the baby... me being a man in todays society ofcourse has no say on the abortion which is basically a load of crap. If males are given equal responsability in regards to childcare payments and looking after the kid then they should also be given equal responsability in the decisson to have the child. Yes i realise it is the womans body,
But did it not take both an ova AND a sperm to created the child?
is it not both the mans and the womans unborn baby?
this is what i fail to understand. Iam usually a rational person. I tend not to overeact or act emotionally...probably something to do with how i was raised. But the truth is that if some bitch decided to abort a child that is both mine and hers... I would honnestly kill her in cold blood. I am usually a pretty empathic person, but i would have a lot of difficulty seeing past the obvious issue of " omfg! she just had my baby killed!". Just the loss of the future experiences with the baby and the opertunities it could have had at a good life would drive me over the edge.
It isnt right to kill a baby without a damned good excuse. accidents dont happen. Iam not one of those conservative Christians who beleive sex is only for your wife... but i do think that if you arent emotionally stable enough to have a baby should an "accident"happen... then you shouldnt be opening your legs like a damned whore.
erawamai
Retired. Gone fishing.
What if the women wants the baby and you don't?
Accidents do happen. Condoms break. A women misses the pill. Etc. She lies to you. Has the baby out of spite so you will have to support her and the child for the rest of the life.
Accidents do happen. Condoms break. A women misses the pill. Etc. She lies to you. Has the baby out of spite so you will have to support her and the child for the rest of the life.
nwatts
Active Member
He makes for an entertaining disgrace, no?Generator said:Normally quite a rational person? You're nothing more than a fucking disgrace (and that's about as polite as I could possibly be at the moment, I'm afraid).
My views on abortion: Morally wrong. Banning solves nothing. Education is the key.
spell check
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
- Messages
- 842
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 1998
that is the greatest thing i've ever readSerius said:
you are offended by the idea of killing an unborn child - but not by the idea of killing a woman in cold blood
anyway there is a good reason that women should be given priority in the choice regarding abortion: the fact that the baby has to be inside them for 9 months.
nwatts
Active Member
Both. Extending; education as to alternatives to abortion as well. Namely, financial education.
Serius
Beyond Godlike
yeah ive sort of got an idea of how to approach abortions in regards to both the mans and the womans rights. Both man and woman should get a vote to go ahead with the abortion or not. If one partner decided not to then the abortion cannot go through. it is effectively vettoed but certain responsabilites must be taken if one of the two wants the baby.
ok bob and jane have sex... 2 months later Jane decides to tell bob she is pregnant. one of them doesnt want the child[ if both wanted it she would just have it so no abortion issue here]
scenario 1
Jane wants the baby. Bob does not.
here what should happen: Bob offers to pay half of the cost of the abortion for jane to pay for the unwanted baby[ half only seen as they are both equally responsible for the baby] Jane tells him no, she wants the baby. As she has decided to take on the responsability for the baby... if Bob so wants he can opt out of responsability for this child as he wanted the abortion. Bob has no contact or rights with the child[unless Jane lets him] But on the upside he doesnt have to make childcare payments as Jane by refusing to abort has taken on responsability for the child.
Jane raises the child alone
scenario 2
Bob wants the baby. Jane does not.
Jane wants to get an abortion. As this would be effectively killing Bobs child he wants the baby. Jane must carry the baby to term. She is compsenated[ either by Bob or by the government i havent decided which yet... By the government makes sense if they want less abortions though] for the time she is inconvenienced [ iam not a specialist on pregnancies but iam guessing maybe 6 months? iam going off this because i know a girl who was still working who was 3 months pregnant and she looked fine] Upon birth, custody of the child is given to Bob. Jane if she so chooses can decide not to have any responsability for the child as above.
I think this basically works pretty well. The only hitch i came accross was the actual time of the pregnancy itself so i thought up compsenating the woman for her time.
This ofcourse assumes that the womans life is not at risk by the pregnancy and that the sexual encounter that produced the child was legal[ i.e rapists have no rights]
what do u guys think?
ok bob and jane have sex... 2 months later Jane decides to tell bob she is pregnant. one of them doesnt want the child[ if both wanted it she would just have it so no abortion issue here]
scenario 1
Jane wants the baby. Bob does not.
here what should happen: Bob offers to pay half of the cost of the abortion for jane to pay for the unwanted baby[ half only seen as they are both equally responsible for the baby] Jane tells him no, she wants the baby. As she has decided to take on the responsability for the baby... if Bob so wants he can opt out of responsability for this child as he wanted the abortion. Bob has no contact or rights with the child[unless Jane lets him] But on the upside he doesnt have to make childcare payments as Jane by refusing to abort has taken on responsability for the child.
Jane raises the child alone
scenario 2
Bob wants the baby. Jane does not.
Jane wants to get an abortion. As this would be effectively killing Bobs child he wants the baby. Jane must carry the baby to term. She is compsenated[ either by Bob or by the government i havent decided which yet... By the government makes sense if they want less abortions though] for the time she is inconvenienced [ iam not a specialist on pregnancies but iam guessing maybe 6 months? iam going off this because i know a girl who was still working who was 3 months pregnant and she looked fine] Upon birth, custody of the child is given to Bob. Jane if she so chooses can decide not to have any responsability for the child as above.
I think this basically works pretty well. The only hitch i came accross was the actual time of the pregnancy itself so i thought up compsenating the woman for her time.
This ofcourse assumes that the womans life is not at risk by the pregnancy and that the sexual encounter that produced the child was legal[ i.e rapists have no rights]
what do u guys think?
withoutaface
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,098
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Depending on how it's regulated that could lead to problems with people who want to abort their partner's pregnancy without her consent or whatever.erawamai said:
- Status