This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why abortion should be illegal

Scroll to see replies

To be honest, the idea that what happens to a child after birth is irrelevant just doesn't sit right with me - if you're going to bring a life into this world, at least make sure you are ready to give it the love and support it needs. To me your statement implies that giving birth is like a factory process - just bring them into the world, the rest doesn't matter.
It's very irresponsible to just reject abortion without thinking about what that means for those involved as individuals, and for the rest of the world. Before pushing for abortion to be banned, the priority is to make sure that we as the world can deal with that - there are so many problems with overpopulation, poverty and lack of infrastructure in lots of countries that I have to wonder if we are really ready for a completely pro-life world. Even developed countries have issues that desperately need to be fixed - if you want a pro-life world,make sure that the world is worth being born into.

Of course, I can see where you're coming from with the point that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, but I stress that not every abortion case is a result of a one-night stand. It's only logical and correct to take each case on its own. You mentioned a 'strict moral code' of Christianity, but I really don't believe that the same 'strict code' applies to all denominations of Christianity - not necessarily on abortion but on other parts of life.

In addition, is there not the idea of taking out the log in your own eye first before worrying about the speck in others'? If more 'Christians' (and people in general) did as much as possible to make sure that the world is the best possible for future generations then sure, a world without abortion could agree with a lot more people. It's very easy to focus on the rules, obligations and ideals of religion, but we have to be careful that it doesn't become insensitive hypocrisy if we don't do anything to back up or support our words (for example providing more support for women during pregnancy/motherhood and more laws to protect women in society, since they are the ones going through labour).

Please, this is NOT a religious argument. The argument against abortion is heavily backed by science.

"if you're going to bring a life into this world, at least make sure you are ready to give it the love and support it needs"
- they have already chosen to bring a life into this world, right from conception. by your definition, you're not a human life until the minute you're born, which is a scary claim. i'm positive you don't believe that, correct me if i'm wrong.

you cannot argue for the killing of a baby because "overpopulation, poverty and lack of infrastructure" are apparent in the world. you're not entitled to kill this baby, you never were.

Reply 301

da_nolo

Original post by Good bloke

The woman, in both cases. She has to endure the pregnancy, which involves risk to her health and life.

not in all cases

Reply 302

Good bloke

Original post by da_nolo

not in all cases

Do you know what "risk" means?

I incur risk every time I cross the road. The fact that I have survived hundreds of thousands of such crossings does not mean that I incurred no risk in doing so, nor that I will escape unharmed the next time I venture out.

I despair at the level of understanding shown here, sometimes, I really do.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 303

Keen_student

Original post by Joel 96

Firstly, I mentioned religion because I was responding to the whole Christianity and a strict moral code speech you made - not the scientific evidence you're talking about now.

Sometimes conception isn't by choice - I seriously don't know how much more I can keep stressing that, and you aren't really responding to that certain point or providing a solution other than tossing the child up for adoption (the social care system is certainly not perfect).

I can definitely agree to disagree with you on your strong pro-life views, even though I would never want to have an abortion myself, because you aren't showing me that you understand both sides of the argument despite the painful efforts I took to express both opinions or that you've considered several what-ifs.

Killing a child as a fetus is just as bad as killing a child through neglecting the environment (not in a nature term only) they will grow up in - the only difference is they die a bit later. Additionally, forcing a woman to give birth when she didn't have a choice is the same as taking her life, in my eyes.

All I'm hoping for is that you will at least respect my views instead of repeating the same "no right to kill" to satisfy what looks like a narrow view of right and wrong. I know that the prospect of ending a life is a horrible one, but simply claiming that abortion is wrong just isn't good enough - prove to the rest of us that banning abortion is the way to go through your actions. Encourage more people to adopt, adopt children yourself, and work hard to improve places which wouldn't be all that great for children to grow up in.
If you already do that, great! Tell us about it and provide some hope instead of coming across as stubborn, angry and self-justified. I, for one, am sick of complaints without solutions.

Reply 304

Fenneko

Original post by Keen_student

i am aware that conception isn't always the result of choice, but that doesn't change my position. a life has started, and that's that.

i'm trying my best to understand your position, i truly am. i find it hard to articulate my views through text, so if i'm coming across as stubborn, i apologise; that was never my intention.

if they die by natural causes, then morality isn't involved. if we're consciously choosing to end a life based on the fear of extraneous variables, then morality is involved. that can be asserted.

Reply 305

Keen_student

Original post by Joel 96

Thanks for understanding - I feel that usually death caused by problems which could be solved but are usually ignored shouldn't be considered natural causes, so I count that as killing. I would encourage you to try and show a little more love to those who may have felt they has no choice but to go through abortion (despite your personal opinion), since abortion in itself can be incredibly traumatising or cause them to be unable to give birth again. Not all women who go through abortion are devils who can kill a baby in cold blood (I'm not saying this is how you see them).

Reply 306

tazarooni89

Original post by Keen_student

First of all, I simply wanted to explain what both sides are thinking when arguing so bitterly over this matter. I don't think that it's that simple - usually people who believe that the child should live no matter their quality of life tend to complain when they choose to end that life (not that I support suicide - let's make it clear I don't).

I'm not saying I support suicide either. I just feel it makes more sense for someone to make their own decision about whether or not to end their own life than for someone else to decide for them. Even if that person doesn't have a perfect, stable, financially well off family unit to grow up in, it's perfectly possible that they would end up being sufficiently satisfied with life so as not to want to die. I am sure that many people would choose being adopted, or raised in a state orphanage, or even being left to fend for themselves on the street, above death.

Another point is, when the mother and child's life is at risk, is there really much of a choice between killing two people through stubborness or (crudely put) killing one? Again, I emphasise that it's never an easy decision to make, but we can only hope that we make the correct choices.

I am certainly pro-abortion if continuation of the pregnancy poses a significant enough risk to the life of the mother. Killing someone else in order to save yourself is often acceptable, in my opinion.

Controversially, I feel like any men (or women, but that's a bit of a grey area) who stubbornly believe that women should give birth no matter what (again, I'm talking about rape) need to experience giving birth for themselves before they can selfishly forget about the woman's own state of mind during the nine months of pregnancy and indeed during labour itself - imagine being forced to go through something like that, then facing judgement from uninvolved and unhelpful people for your desire to not go through childbirth.

Again, rather than being stuck to one side it would be fairer to be willing to compromise on this issue - unless you have the capability yourself to care for every child who would otherwise have been aborted, you really can't say too much about this (I mean you generally). This is why, although I'm personally unlikely to go through with abortion, I can understand the situations of those who may decide to do it. That's all I want to make clear, and I hope that others will be able to understand more about both sides of the argument.

I certainly understand this side of the argument, and would never want for us to simply "forget" about the well-being of a woman who has either been raped or otherwise become unintentionally pregnant. I admit I don't, and never will understand what that might be like. And I also agree that every support possible should be offered to such people. However, no matter how bad it might be for them, I don't think abortion can ever be the answer to this.

In every other situation, we would value a person's life first, and a person's emotional well-being second. Even if, for example, someone were to brutally murder your whole family in front of you and mentally scar you for life as a result, we in the UK still would not attempt to rectify your mental state by administering the death penalty to that person. Even though that person is the ultimate scum of the earth, by law their life is still more valuable than your emotional sense of closure. And when we treat their life as so valuable, it seems impossible to rationalise not doing the same for an innocent, unborn child.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 307

da_nolo

Original post by Good bloke

indeed, and when risk is measured low even doctors will say there is no risk of death, despite there still being some risk. Likewise, not all women will have a consistent presence of risk to their life. Thus, not in all cases (does a pregnant woman have risk to their health and life). Presuming life regards to the opposite of death rather a style or measurement of living.

But this is not really for dispute.

I agree a woman bears majority of risk and hardship and endearment during pregnancy.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 308

username1723547

Original post by ckfeister

Does anyone get confused that socialism meant to be for the people yet they kill/want their own way and cover it up by " equality "

PS. Under 5 weeks I wouldn't say thats harmful. *read before replying...*

It's not murder to abort a foetus as it is not yet a reasonable person in being.

Socialism is for the people, and an unborn baby is not a person under the law.

Reply 309

Retired_Messiah

The only real argument in favour of making it totally illegal that I can think of is that it would do wonders for the coat hanger industry.

Reply 310

Keen_student

Hi, thank you for replying :smile:

!
Thinking on it fresh, it could be a good solution, but on the other hand the child might grow up and (as they do) wonder about their roots/who their parents were and how they came to be adopted (that's where the trouble starts).
This could happen once the child gets a clue that their parents aren't their biological ones. I've never been in the position before and I don't know anyone who has so I can't really say for sure what would happen.

Reply 311

Underscore__

Original post by Joel 96

The death penalty, war and gun ownership are just false comparisons. We're talking about the murder of an innocent being - THAT cancels out the death penalty for a start. Many critics of the death penalty, particularly those who oppose it on the grounds of innocents being accidentally executed, must subsequently oppose all forms of war, since war invariably ends up with innocents being killed for the sake of nations. I personally do believe it was right to fight in the Second World War. The first? No, but that's a completely different discussion for another day.

WBZ's accusation that the pro-life standpoint has nothing to do with valuing human life couldn't be further from the truth. It's the absolute seabed of the pro-life movement and anyone who's a compassionate individual. You cannot claim to be above those who "do not value human life", when you yourself aren't even getting involved on compassionate grounds. I do not care about your body, I do not care about your heart, I do not care about your liver, I care about what's in your uterus because that is an individual human being in there, and you just decided that you own the baby. This notion of ownership is non-applicable outside of the womb, so it cannot be applicable inside the womb. The only instance of when ownership was applicable was during the 18th century when slavery was prevalent.

If you're willing to argue that the death of a baby is more preferable to the adoption of a baby, then I have no time for you.

I can't be bothered to read this whole post but you're using the word 'murder' inappropriately

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 312

Good bloke

Original post by da_nolo

In some countries, the risk of maternal death is almost 16%, even in the twenty-first century. That isn't low, especially when you consider how may children they routinely have.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

Reply 313

Underscore__

Original post by Good bloke

The mortality rate in developing countries isn't relevant to the abortion debate in the UK. The fact is in this country having a baby is safe, a few very unfortunate people will die from childbirth

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 314

Good bloke

Original post by Underscore__

The mortality rate in developing countries isn't relevant to the abortion debate in the UK. The fact is in this country having a baby is safe, a few very unfortunate people will die from childbirth

Reply 315

da_nolo

Original post by Good bloke

The OP is about abortion being illegal or legal. There is no territorial limit mentioned and we are discussing principles. In principle, no matter where she is in the world, carrying an unborn child is risky for the mother in terms of both death and of harmed health. The variation lies only in the degree of risk - but that risk is always there, and used to carry a very high chance of death, even in Europe. The person I was debating with tried to claim the risk is zero..." No I didn't.I just simply displayed disbelief that in all circunstances there will always be a risk to life. I.E. death.

I do believe situations are different for each woman in which a doctor may say as i have heard..."there is no risk" based on how low the risk is

Even in situations in which life or health are at risk we do not kill another person in order save 1.

For example. Two soldiers on a battlefield are wounded. I do not see a situation occuring that would deem it moral to shoot the least likely to survive to save the easiest person to help.

Thus, in cases of pregnancy .... we need to first attempt to save both mother and child. Second to act to not make direct attempt to kill the child or mother.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 316

username1214455

This is not a baby. This is less developed than a fish. You would rather ruin someone's life, than bin the bunch of cells above. It has no consciousness, no awareness, no feelings. If you try and argue that it will be a human someday, then you must also be against masturbation, because all those sperm cells could have been too. You would rather a woman suffer through pregnancy and childbirth, and have to give birth to child she never wanted to suit your own twisted sense of morality. Let's say a 16 year old girl was raped, and had one of these forced inside her by her rapist. She'd have to give up on her education, change her life, and be scarred even more by the rape than you can possibly imagine. It angers me that you believe you're righteous for doing this. This thing above isn't a human, but the mother is, and you're choosing to destroy her life. Maybe you're the monster.

Reply 317

da_nolo

Spoiler

1. the most prevalent means to argue against a group of people or degrade them is to identify:

a. they don't act as they should/like us
b. they are a lesser kind
c. they do not look like us.

I am sure there are more but c. seems to be more common among racists and pro-abortionists. With that said, how a person looks does not determine nor should it determine their importance, worth, or liberties. Agree?

Should be clear we aught to consider humanity and not what a person looks like.

2. Now depending on what you mean by "less developed than a fish" then I can respond with yes/no. Most people think of a swimming animal as a fish.

Spoiler

I would agree in comparison a fish that is seen swimming would be more developed than an embryo/fetus as you would be comparing an adult fish to a non-adult human. Any animal further along their natural life cycle will be more developed than an animal that is not.

If we compared fish DNA to human DNA, however, and looked at how a species has developed...I would think human would be more developed - though this could be argued. In which case you would not be more developed than some fish as well.

Either way it is looked at, development is a weak consideration.

3. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF CELLS

4. some months that require us to adapt so that another life survives will not automatically ruin a woman's life.

5. Even adult humans become unconscious (me including) - in which you are suggesting for this very reason, these humans do not matter at all?

Some drugs can alter a person sensory so that they do not "feel" - some of which are abused to get high. PCP, for example. Awareness is arguable though you are probably suggesting the sort that requires consciousness. I lean on point 2. You are just leaning on a characteristic or lack there of that is different then yours. There is only ignorance when comparing any thing in accordance to how it should not be.

6. your masturbation point is a joke. No one argues, "it could be human." as SCIENCE has already identified what the human life cycle consists of - and that includes our state while within our own mother's womb!

in comparison - all cells in your body, including sperm or egg, will remain those cells. Sperm cell doesn't change until it is assimilated into the egg in which that cell no longer exists. Whether in the earliest fetus stage or a single cell, the cells are multiplying and changing into an array of cells. We can research biology to further understand how and why the term human includes all of us while in the womb.

7. Let's consider what a teen has to say about the situation of being pregnant due to a rape.
a. http://madworldnews.com/raped-teen-abortion/
“Adoption does NOT end your life, I’m proof,” Kathy added, then explained that she’s gone on to have two more beautiful daughters and have an otherwise fulfilling life. “Both my daughters are homeowners, did wonderful in school, and never missed curfews. So the pro-choice people just use that as an excuse.”

b. Now 15, Ashley is a freshman in high school, adjusting to her life as a teenage mother and student. Baby Aiden is 20 months old, and although life has not been easy, Ashley is excelling in her classes and is a straight-A student.
an-update-on-ashley-and-baby-aiden/
I believe Ashley gave a report that abortion would have given the rapist exactly what the rapist wanted.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/17/pregnant-at-17-she-refused-an-abortion-now-she-calls-her-daughter-a-gift/

8. Now, no matter what - the only way to destroy a life is to kill it. To change the way a person lives is not having their life destroyed. There are plenty of ways to aid and assist the mother in her time of need. Those days will come and pass. I know this sounds cold, but I just view death to be colder.

.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 318

Good bloke

Original post by da_nolo

No I didn't.I just simply displayed disbelief that in all circunstances there will always be a risk to life. I.E. death.

Then you are unable to distinguish between NO risk and LOW risk. A pregnant woman ALWAYS carries a higher risk to her life and health than a non-pregnant woman, all other circumstances being equal.

Reply 319

AnnieGakusei

To answer the title of the thread:

Abortion in general should not be illegal.

Firstly, because criminalising abortion would not get rid of abortion. It would show the country's official stance on the issue, true, but people would probably have more or less the same number of abortions as they did before. Only they would be unsafe, and desperate women would be delivering themselves into the unhygienic, money-grubbing hands of backstreet clinics.

Secondly, because we've already seen what happens in countries like El Salvador where abortion is completely illegal. Women are forced to carry a foetus to term, even if it'll kill them. People in such places live in fear of being pregnant -- especially since, if you miscarry, you may face prosecution (since you could be accused of trying to abort the foetus) on top of the trauma of miscarriage.

Thirdly, because a woman who is pregnant as the result of a rape should not be forced to carry her rapist's child. If she wants to (on account of her own principles) then she may, but if she didn't consensually agree to the action which carried the risk of being implanted with an unwanted foetus, then it is cruel to force her to have the baby. She may be a 15-year-old schoolgirl about to sit her GCSEs, frail or mentally disabled, have a serious inheritably condition, or be a single mother working two jobs to support the four children she already has.

Fourthly, because the foetus may have a condition which will significantly shorten their lifespan, cause a great deal of grief and suffering or make the pregnancy unviable / kill the mother as well. In such cases it should be up to the discretion of the parents -- again, they can choose to keep the baby if they want.

I'm entirely unsympathetic towards gender-specific abortion and when the patient concerned knowingly refused to use any form of birth control, or allow their partner to use it.