If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm not 100% sure I'd phrase it like that - but yes, to a certain extent that's the crux of the argument.
No matter how you dress, flirt, etc it is never a woman's fault if she's raped.
But to have voluntary sex she has consented and she's not blameless if that results in pregnancy (neither's the man to be fair) and the argument would be that she as one of agreeing parties has to suffer the consequences, rather than the foetus which had no choice in the matter.
I assume that its the best of two bad moral choices - so its not morally acceptable, but its less morally inacceptable.
That prob doesn't make sense does it
How the frig am I doing that?
Not saying that and I certainly don't mean it. (might be implying it though) However, like someone else said (in this thread I think) I don't think that abortion should be used as birth control.
I think alot of people would be in agreement with you on that, but I'm not sure how much that actually happens in reality anyway.
.. which, when you look at the "exclusions" you gave is the only time you don't accpt the right of choice.
So why not? Why is it morally wrong to abort becuase you don't want the child (and possibly should have taken precautions) but not when the baby may have a "defect", or your life may be in danger?
Aren't you, in effect, arguing that the woman should be "punished" for not using contraception whilst the male partner gets off scot free?
And do you accept that the upshot of this would be "backstreet" abortions, or doctors claiming that a defect/risks exists because they don't agree withthe law which would be in place?
Yep. Is that wrong then?
Sofie, imagine this hypothetical conversation:
Q1: Why do you want to abort?
A1: Because I don't want the baby.
Q2: Why don't you want the baby?
A2: Because it's a result of my getting raped.
In this post: you're saying that: if the answer to Question 1 is "I don't want the baby" then it's not an acceptable reason for you, regardless of what the answer to Question 2 is.
In this post: you're saying that "I don't want the baby" is an acceptable answer to Question 1, if the answer to Question 2 is "Because it's a result of my getting raped."
That's all the others are saying; that rape as a reason to abort is only a subcategory of not wanting the baby; and as you said that the latter isn't an acceptable reason for you, this is a logical contrast.
Depends what the defect is. If it's something which can be operated on, then I think it would be wrong to have an abortion.
How did you reach that conclusion?
It would depend what the defect is. Like I said, if it was something that the child was born with, but if they had some operations and didn't have to have endless hospital appointments, then I wouldn't abort my child.
However, if it was something serious that will stop then from having a decent quality of life and they had to have endless hospital appoitments, then I may consider having an abortion.
Why only those which can be operated on?
What "defect"would you deem acceptable to abort?
Because you are arguing that the femal concerned should have to go through pregnancy (with all the vomiting, piles, stretchmarks etc), the give birth (which is life threatening, but also with the c-section/tearing/forceps/blood loss etc), so that she could give birth to a child which she didn't want in the first place. Doing that to someone, against their will, could be construed as torture.
All the while, bloke-who-shagged-her, can carry on with his life as normal.
Anything which could put the child's life in danger or means that the child won't have a decent quality of life. Can't think of anything right now though.
So you're saying that if a woman becomes pregnant and decides that she didn't want the baby, she could just abort it?
Yes as long as it is within the legal time frame.
Define "quality of life"- isn't that subjective? It could be argued that a hare-lip can affect quality of life (even though in many cases an operation helps), what about Downs?
Yep.
If she thought it was best for her child. When it comes to defects, I think it should be up to the parents to decide what they think is best for the child.
So, if you were a doctor, you'd let a woman have countless abortions because she decided that she didn't want the child?