Why abortion should be illegal

It seriously disturbs me that we are still having this discussion in the 21st century. Where do we draw the line if we start forcing women into parenthood because it offends our sensibilities? How about women start forcing absentee fathers into marriage & living with the child until 18? because y'know, it's immoral and un-christian to abandon a family like that without trying to make it work, men can make a stupid selfish decision and ruin the future of that poor child, think of that child's potential to cure cancer, all gone to waste because the dad wasn't around. (and yes I am reversing a common argument anti-abortionists hold)

I'm not using the 'rare cases', bringing up any child is hard no matter who you are, ask your mother.

Of course money is a type of support- financial support, but if a woman (in a land where abortion is illegal) was forced to bring up a child they never wanted, a man should be made to bring it up to?? It only makes sense! Considering they played equal parts in creating the child.

And regarding contraception, the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy, is to not have sex. So unless everyone stopped having sex, then there would always be risk to pregnancy, and always a few who get pregnant who didn't want to, and therefore always people who because of their circumstances, would like or need an abortion?

What about rape?

It seriously disturbs me that we are still having this discussion in the 21st century. Where do we draw the line if we start forcing women into parenthood because it offends our sensibilities? How about women start forcing absentee fathers into marriage & living with the child until 18? because y'know, it's immoral and un-christian to abandon a family like that without trying to make it work, men can make a stupid selfish decision and ruin the future of that poor child, think of that child's potential to cure cancer, all gone to waste because the dad wasn't around. (and yes I am reversing a common argument anti-abortionists hold)

Your logic makes no sense because you're skipping a step. You talk about forcing absentee fathers to stay around but if you want to keep it Christian then people shouldn't be having sex out of wedlock. If a dad to be says that he's leaving and the mother keeps the baby anyway she is solely responsible for any negative consequences the child faces.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm not talking about now, because women have the choice to abort now, I'm talking about if they didn't have that choice.

I'm not using the 'rare cases', bringing up any child is hard no matter who you are, ask your mother.

Of course money is a type of support- financial support, but if a woman (in a land where abortion is illegal) was forced to bring up a child they never wanted, a man should be made to bring it up to?? It only makes sense! Considering they played equal parts in creating the child.

And regarding contraception, the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy, is to not have sex. So unless everyone stopped having sex, then there would always be risk to pregnancy, and always a few who get pregnant who didn't want to, and therefore always people who because of their circumstances, would like or need an abortion?

What about rape?

I don't really believe in abortion. It doesn't make sense to me why a pregnant woman would want to kill a healthy unborn child.

The unborn child doesn't even have a say whether to live or die.

Also there also other options other than abortion. If you don;t want to raise the child who is your own flesh and blood, place the child on adoption for someone else to take responsibility. There are couples who can't get pregnant and would appreciate young child to have as their own.

Its sounds so irresponsible to get pregnant and then request an abortion when the unborn child doesn't even have to be raised by the mother.
I think its cool that through sex life can be born but then you want to kill life because you don't want "it" like the the unborn child doesn't share your DNA and didn't come from you? (Mother)

So the unborn baby is just an "it"? Isn't "it" human? Didn't we all start as "it"?

Why are you assuming they are healthy?
I like to believe majority are healthy but I don't memorize the statistics. Healthy as in no lethal diseases. Workers/doctors usually can predict whether the baby will be healthy or not. Pregnant women do abort healthy unborn children sometimes. Not every unborn child is unhealthy so I can assume an unborn child is/can be healthy if you get what I'm sayin.
If the child did have a choice, is it really going to choose to die?

Exactly? Are we on the same page or something? I think it is a sad way for an unborn child to go. Forming/ed in the mother's womb and then to be ripped apart at the mother's request.


What if giving birth presents an extreme danger to mother and/or child? And saturate social services even more? There are plenty of children out there waiting to be adopted. There's no shortage of children for infertile couples.

I don't know. Are you implying that majority of pregnancies are dangerous?My point is life is precious.

Nobody 'wants' to kill an unborn child as such, the decision isn't often taken lightly. Who cares what it 'sounds' or 'seems' like.

It doesn't make sense to me why a pregnant woman would want to kill a healthy unborn child.

There are always other options than abortion.

To save her own life, perhaps?



Options like dying.

options like modern medicine that can help prevent two deaths.

Why are you assuming they are healthy?

If the child did have a choice, is it really going to choose to die?


What if giving birth presents an extreme danger to mother and/or child? And saturate social services even more? There are plenty of children out there waiting to be adopted. There's no shortage of children for infertile couples.


Nobody 'wants' to kill an unborn child as such, the decision isn't often taken lightly. Who cares what it 'sounds' or 'seems' like.

Why are you assuming they are healthy? .

I'd say you're the one skipping a step, as you're implying a father cannot leave if in wedlock. I think the millions of divorced and separate partners around the globe would disagree strongly with that logic. Besides, ignoring the fact that when a father leaves, the potential life and achievements of the kid disappear too as a result of the lost financial and parental contributions, is the same as disregarding the potential life and achievements of a fetus. Yet like I said, we do not force fathers to remain in the family home, and we sure as hell do not force women into having a child they do not want.

Nope disagree. Womans body and her choice, because she and the family have to raise it and be responsible for its lifetime.
Making it illegal would just bring more children into the world that arent wanted or increase backstreet abortions or force people to have them in extreme circumsatnces such as the child having serious medical conditions or being the result of things like rape.

I cant see that its got anything to do with being socialist.

Obviously the state draws the line at so many weeks for where it does become illegal. Im 100% for a womans right to choose before that date.

Women have a right to use their body the way they want to, if they want to have sex a lot fine, if they want to wear what every fine. The same goes for men, as long as it's not offensive it doesn't really matter, it doesn't affect you. If they want to be fit or fat who fudging cares, it's not you!!!!!

I just can't get behind the 'it's her body' argument. Because it's not really her body, is it? It's another body within her body. Besides, basing the argument on that results in fallacies. Why is abortion not ok beyond X week in that case? It's still 'her body'. It doesn't spawn its own existence spontaneously beyond a certain week. It doesn't make sense why abortion shouldn't be legal all throughout the pregnancy if you're using the 'it's her body' argument.I'm not saying that abortion is wrong. I'm saying that this argument is a bad one.

It's about what is made lawful by God and what is made unlawful by God...Killing children is made unlawful...while animals were made for human use....there are things (harmful) which He forbade and the good things he allowed.... And idk much of fetus but being a human I can clearly understand that abortion is liking killing a kid....and secondly that kid is part of mother..... Like here in Pakistan..kids seats are charged no-where until they sit in lap of their mothers.....so seat and passport issue depends on both space and understanding.... And plants and certain animals are made lawful to eat while some animals aren't..... and a life is a life...this is your materialistic approach by which million were killed and will be killed.... Don't you read what God said in Quran? ''Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned. ''

The difference there is people usually end up pregnant as a result of choices they've made so it's far more reasonable to say that you have a responsibility to a 'life' you've created rather than one you haven't.There were still back alley abortion clinics before abortion was made legal but the argument that people will find away is ridiculous. People find away to murder and rape each other so shall we legalise that as well?

Everyone should be able to wear whatever they want, even if some people find it offensive.

No not really, think about it would it be acceptable if someone wore a racist t-shirt or a sexist one just because they are allowed too. No, not really as that would hurt, offend and insult many. It is the reason why I said As long as it's not hurting anyone.
It is very similar to saying that you can punch someone, regardless or say something racist or insulting regardless. I'm not talking about petty stuff like having the middle finger on a t-shirt, I'm talking about something like a money on a t-shirt eating bananas and it says the n-word across it.