Poll: Should doctors be required to show women pictures of her unborn child before she can have an abortion?
This is a question being asked on a poll over on the Telegraph.
Should doctors be required to show women pictures of her unborn child before she can have an abortion?
And this is a question I’ve asked myself, especially given the de-humanising terms employed by pro-abortion folk to describe the unborn baby. I sometimes wonder if adding some flesh and heartbeat to a mothers “foetus” might cause some pause for thought.
Hop over and have vote; it’ll be interesting to note the results.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical
February 9th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Yes, why not? Abortion is just another form of contraception, little thought is given to what exists in the womb, this may make men and women stop and think that the act they are about to sign up to is actually….murder. And murder most foul.
February 9th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Well I suppose you’ll think I’m heartless for saying no, absolutely not, but in all honesty that is my view. I believe one’s view is primarily informed by one’s religious belief or lack of belief. It cannot be argued that the being being aborted can experience any physical pain or understanding or sense of being alive during the early period of pregnancy.
February 9th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Simian – so that makes it alright does it? There is actually a very good argument illustrating that the foetus does all it can to avoid the surgical instruments; there is scientific and film evidence.
But, just the fact that pain may or may not be felt has no base in supporting abortion.
The issue is, do you believe that the foetus or embryo is a living being?
If so, it should not be killed.
February 9th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
I think the question just adds to the perception that pro-lifers think that those who choose to have a termination do so without any forethought or consideration.
It really does cheapen the debate.
February 10th, 2012 at 12:48 am
No. Full stop. No need to further discuss.
This debate is completely idiotic. Abortion has always existed and will always exist. Any attempt to making it illegal will result in more deaths or debilitating injuries to women who will go back to performing illegal abortions or do everything they need to kill their unborn child. The only country that has ever succeeded in imposing 0 abortion was Romania under tyrannical communist despot Ceaucescu. And he succeeded because of the size of his secrete police. Making abortions illegal, will benefit idiots who will be blind to the human suffering they have caused, and the illegal doctors who will perform these procedures. I wish we could live in another world… But we cannot
February 10th, 2012 at 6:36 am
@ Richard Collins
If one does not believe that life is God given (I don’t) then I don’t think the ‘living being’ argument changes anything. Eating bacon implies killing a living being – moreover, killing a living being that can at the point of killing experience pain, fear and distress. Following your argument we should all be vegetarians.
And mainstream opinion is that the early term foetus is not able to experience pain, or be aware of being alive
February 10th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Simian – I like to think of myself rather superior to a pound of streaky (please don’t answer that!).
The real point is that, even if I was to accept your argument that life is not God given, homo sapiens is still a very different sort of creature from any other on the planet. We have a thought process that bears no relation to any other being, we are able to exercise free will or not as the case may be. Our intellect is eons ahead of any other life form.
That at the very least gives us a reason to respect human life.
By your rationale, if we found a beggar dying at the side of the road we would be failing in our duty if we did not finish him off and save the NHS more money.
February 10th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Richard
I was addressing the logic of your specific point about ‘living beings’. But I do not happen to believe that humans are so very much more special than many other animals. It is natural for us to think of our own species as special, but then so do most of the more highly evolved creatures. And if one was to judge this on intellect and awareness of being, then my cat would be eons ahead of an ‘unborn’ human in the first month of a pregnancy. Incidentally, I find the idea of shooting other species purely for sport absolutely despicable.
I absolutely do not think it a duty to kill a beggar dying at the side of the road. If I gave that impression then please disregard it! I’m trying to puzzle out how you arrived at that idea. I agree that a beggar possesses free will. A foetus does not.
I’m not asking you for a minute to change your views, particularly if they are informed by religious belief. I’m just trying to make the point that there is a rational alternative view, particularly if one is not a believer; and that those of us who hold this alternative view do not do so through lack of thought. Quite the reverse.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Absolutely not.
Bringing up a child is so much more involved than *just* flesh and blood.
Scaring people into continuing a pregnancy they simply cannot comprehend keeping isn’t the answer – or any answer, actually.
Are people who choose to continue a pregnancy shown vivid images of women giving birth? Or hour-long tantrums thrown by out-of-control toddlers…or 15 year old lads, swearing at their mothers because they stopped them going out?
There is much more to the debate than scare-mongering.