Why abortion should be illegal

You don't tackle overpopulation by terminating already existing lives; you prevent lives from being conceived in the first place.
For example, I think that the British Hong Kong period demonstrated a respectable approach by encouraging a 2 child policy limit - not what the Chinese have done when they made it a law, which resulted in 2nd and 3rd children being terminated. The British Hong Kong campaign worked and the country today has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.04 per woman). All you need to do is encourage a strict moral code, not massacre millions of babies, which really is the stuff of sixth form debate.

But if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby in her then she should rightly be able to terminate the pregnancy.

The fetus has not become a person or lived any kind of life.( It'd be different if the pregnancy was at a point where the fetus can survive outside the womb of course.)

First bolded claim - No law outside of the womb would allow her to do that. If you stuck a knife into a baby's chest you'd be charged with first degree murder.

Firstly, "Fetus" is a nice Latin word, isn't it? The baby is dehumanized already. "Embryo", "Fetus", all words to dehumanize. They have no value whatsoever. Secondly, 'person' is not defined by the social features a human has. The objective stance is that human life begins at conception. Any cut-off point is down to convenience and subjectivity, which cannot be taken seriously as an argument. If you judge human life by viability (the ability to live on its own), then do people who slip into comas automatically lose their rights? What about someone with a serious brain ailment? They cannot live without life support, so is it right to kill them, especially knowing that they're going to come back in a few weeks/months?

But it is in the womb, it hasn't been born into this world yet. Yes if someone stabbed a woman in the belly while she was pregnant, and she wanted the baby, it would be terrible and traumatic.You cannot compare that to a woman who finds out she is pregnant and decides she doesn't want to be, the value of the fetus is placed on her.


And you want to humanize it so much. Life is not so precious, it is fleeting and short lived. There are many things that "could have been" that will never get to be and things that will have their lives cut short. Life begins at conception but it is not important or significant to anyone at that point if the parents don't want and it isn't allowed to grow into a person. The value of a life is placed on the life itself, but if it is unable to value it's own life then that value is very much down to the lives closest to it. People in situations should as being brain dead s have led lives, they have long been established as people with social connections, and if you know they're gonna come back then obviously you're gonna keep them going until then. However, if there is no chance of their recovery then yes they should be left to die. What would be the point in living for living's sake? It is the woman that has to carry the baby and go through the birth. Why should she have to go through that if she doesn't want to?

However (big however), a woman who is pregnant with a child she didn't want (perhaps through rape), or may not be in the right state of mind (or environment) to properly support a child probably shouldn't give birth. I say this because there are so many cases of children being brought up in abusive households where parents don't seem to care one bit about them, and can you imagine how a child might feel if they find out they weren't born through love, but through a terrible experience? If a woman does give birth to a child she never wanted, can you guarantee they will have a decent quality of life?

Forget about religion or rights over women's bodies for a moment and consider what would be better for a child. Even being put up for adoption can cause them to feel abandoned or betrayed. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong answer to the whole "is abortion right?" - instead of trying to force your own ideals blindly onto others (on both sides of the argument), consider each option with respect and a lot more consideration towards all the complicated scenarios in the world...

(But I also want to add that you shouldn't assume that protection works 100% - if you really aren't in the position to take care of a child, you better be sure you aren't going to have one!)

However (big however), a woman who is pregnant with a child she didn't want (perhaps through rape), or may not be in the right state of mind (or environment) to properly support a child probably shouldn't give birth. I say this because there are so many cases of children being brought up in abusive households where parents don't seem to care one bit about them, and can you imagine how a child might feel if they find out they weren't born through love, but through a terrible experience? If a woman does give birth to a child she never wanted, can you guarantee they will have a decent quality of life?

And you want to humanize it so much. Life is not so precious, it is fleeting and short lived. There are many things that "could have been" that will never get to be and things that will have their lives cut short. Life begins at conception but it is not important or significant to anyone at that point if the parents don't want and it isn't allowed to grow into a person. The value of a life is placed on the life itself, but if it is unable to value it's own life then that value is very much down to the lives closest to it. People in situations should as being brain dead s have led lives, they have long been established as people with social connections, and if you know they're gonna come back then obviously you're gonna keep them going until then. However, if there is no chance of their recovery then yes they should be left to die. What would be the point in living for living's sake? It is the woman that has to carry the baby and go through the birth. Why should she have to go through that if she doesn't want to?

I don't really think it's for any of us to judge someone else's quality of life. If that child grows up and feels that their quality of life is, and always will be so terrible that they'd rather not live it, perhaps they can make that decision on their own.

Even if you think someone else lacks a decent quality of life (there are so many people in the world worse off than the children in the situation you describe), it doesn't really give us the right to kill them. Even if we go to a war-stricken third world country and find a child starving, injured, homeless, orphaned, unwanted by anybody etc. I'm sure you'd still consider it a terrible crime for us to kill them. Even if it's a mercy killing, we are not the ones with the right to make the decision as to whether they should live or die.

Again, your side is arguing on convenience. Where did this entitlement come from, to end another one's life when it has only just begun? If you cannot support the child, or if you don't want the child, there is plenty of people who do.

Rather than arguing on convenience, I believe I am simply considering both views - I'm not claiming a 'side' - you'll notice that I personally wouldn't choose abortion.There is no entitlement involved - no-one can decide what' right or wrong with these matters, especially if they've never experienced something like rape.

Actually, that ideal that a woman should give birth no matter the circumstance seems pretty entitled to me.Sure there's adoption, but do you know that it still affects a child poorly? While some children are able to cope with the idea they are adopted, a lot will struggle with the idea that they are 'unwanted', whether alive or dead (in the case of abortion). Adoption tends to be more like choosing a product (note: I'm not calling children products, but this is the way they are treated), with couples wanting children of a certain age, appearance or behaving a certain way, or using them just to gain attention that they've 'done a good deed'.
Moreover, there are simply not enough facilities/resources for every child to be adopted - are foster homes or orphanages guaranteed to give children a good quality of life? Not every child without parents is fortunate enough to be adopted, and they are usually very vulnerable without a supporting adult/s who gives them parental care.Either way, a child being unwanted is a terrible thing - to me it doesn't change that fact whether they're alive or not. And again, while some will appreciate the fact that they at least weren't aborted, others may not see it that way. This is why I mentioned in my last post that if you really don't want a child, save yourself the trouble and be very sure you won't end up with one (like get the female equivalent of a vasectomy or indeed a vasectomy -- whatever).
With as much respect as possible, I want to get the points across that you shouldn't judge or criticise others for something you may not be able to relate to, and don't blindly label these views as entitlement or paint it as a 'black and white' matter- abortion isn't an easy thing to go through, and matters are never as easy as to just give birth.
Lastly, please don't assign me to any 'sides' seeing as I simply tried to encourage consideration of both views because it's becoming more of an ugly brawl than a respectful debate on a site that should promote wider, more mature thinking and understanding (this last bit annoys me the most, actually).

Sorry, but you are arguing from convenience. Whatever happens to the child after birth is irrelevant. Nobody has the right to end a life because they think it would be good for him/her. That is the epitome of entitlement. If you are arguing for abortion at all, you have picked a side. It is indeed black and white; if it truly is just a clump of cells, then why are people offended when the pro-life side accuses abortionists of using it as a primary method of birth control, and if it is a human being, then why are people okay with aborting it? These are interesting questions that need to be answered.

I agree, it is absolutely crucial that we deter people from having children they cannot support, either financially or physically. We do this by keeping a strict moral code. The code before the destruction of Christianity after the first world war was indeed life-long marriage. Unfortunately, marriage is now diminishing, and we're now living in a Lady Chatterley society where sex is like tennis and it's just something you do without consequence.

The fact is, we are now brandishing a level of irresponsibility and incompetence. Abortions will continue to happen, as they have done ever since the '67 act. Unless we change the law, it will continue to go up. This is concentration camp, as far as I'm concerned.

Thankfully in this country we no longer live in a time where everyone is expected to follow a faith and get married. People now have greater freedoms, including sexual freedoms. Humans have basic needs, urges, and instincts like other animals, including the need for sex. Managing these instincts is down to various individual, social and cultural factors. The use of protection is encouraged, but it can fail or the heat of the moment can get the better of people (biological urges can be difficult to overcome sometimes.)

In a way it can be a form of birth control, albeit a later one. People should be able to manage when they have children if that's what they want. Science has progressed to a point where we can have control over that aspect of our lives more than ever before. Considering the many possibilities, we could artificially improve that human race by mending faulty genes and removing genetic disorders, maybe even increase brain efficiency. Heck, maybe we could even have two women or two men have a baby made from their own genes, it's not outside the realms of possibility. Sex doesn't necessarily have to occur any-more.

With this level of control there wouldn't be any "unwanted" children and families would be planned and happier. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if everyone had some of their sperm/eggs "banked" at an early age and then got sterilised. No accidental pregnancies and you can plan when you want a child further down the the line

Sorry, but you are arguing from convenience. Whatever happens to the child after birth is irrelevant. Nobody has the right to end a life because they think it would be good for him/her. That is the epitome of entitlement. If you are arguing for abortion at all, you have picked a side. It is indeed black and white; if it truly is just a clump of cells, then why are people offended when the pro-life side accuses abortionists of using it as a primary method of birth control, and if it is a human being, then why are people okay with aborting it? These are interesting questions that need to be answered.

I agree, it is absolutely crucial that we deter people from having children they cannot support, either financially or physically. We do this by keeping a strict moral code. The code before the destruction of Christianity after the first world war was indeed life-long marriage. Unfortunately, marriage is now diminishing, and we're now living in a Lady Chatterley society where sex is like tennis and it's just something you do without consequence.

The fact is, we are now brandishing a level of irresponsibility and incompetence. Abortions will continue to happen, as they have done ever since the '67 act. Unless we change the law, it will continue to go up. This is concentration camp, as far as I'm concerned.

Thankfully in this country we no longer live in a time where everyone is expected to follow a faith and get married. People now have greater freedoms, including sexual freedoms. Humans have basic needs, urges, and instincts like other animals, including the need for sex. Managing these instincts is down to various individual, social and cultural factors. The use of protection is encouraged, but it can fail or the heat of the moment can get the better of people (biological urges can be difficult to overcome sometimes.)

In a way it can be a form of birth control, albeit a later one. People should be able to manage when they have children if that's what they want. Science has progressed to a point where we can have control over that aspect of our lives more than ever before. Considering the many possibilities, we could artificially improve that human race by mending faulty genes and removing genetic disorders, maybe even increase brain efficiency. Heck, maybe we could even have two women or two men have a baby made from their own genes, it's not outside the realms of possibility. Sex doesn't necessarily have to occur any-more.

With this level of control there wouldn't be any "unwanted" children and families would be planned and happier. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if everyone had some of their sperm/eggs "banked" at an early age and then got sterilised. No accidental pregnancies and you can plan when you want a child further down the the line

One question for you all.

Lets say A man and a woman had consensual sex. The condom broke and she is pregnant, The woman who is pregnant says she wants a abortion. The man Says he does not and would like a child and would care for him.
Who has the right to choose?

Same scenario but the woman wants the child and would care for him but the man says he does not want a child.
Who has the right to choose?

The ability to have an abortion literally saves women's lives - whether because of the physical/emotional trauma pregnancy would cause, the potentional for abuse they could face at the hands of their parents or partner if they were against the pregnancy, or simply because of the dangers of backstreet abortions.