On the fence about abortion, and I have some moral questions for both sides

From a pro-choice standpoint:

1) No, since it isn't considered an independent human being until it is viable and can survive independently of its mother's womb. After this point, yes it would have rights.
2) Because up until the point of viability, the fetus is considered a part of the mother's body.
3) I think it would be very hypocritical of a pro-choicer to condemn or attempt to restrict abortion when it is done based on characteristics. The fetus is either just a collection of cells, in which case it can be aborted for any reason whatsoever, or it is an individual person with rights, in which case it cannot. Permitting or restricting abortion based on the personal reasoning behind the mother's choices, completely contradicts all the arguments that pro-choicers make in terms of justifying abortion. You may question the character of a person who aborts a baby because it's a girl, or because its gay, but that wouldn't justify banning them from doing so.

I think abortion is fine and should be allowed ONLY during the first trimester, when the 'foetus', if you can call it that, is just a bunch of cells.

After that the water become waaaaay too murky and the current limit of 26 weeks is unacceptable, many children have survived after being born that early.

And also it shouldn't be free and covered by the NHS. If you don't want a child there's a plethora of contraceptives available. It's also not like women wake up one day and they're randomly pregnant; if you can't afford a child or an abortion, it's simple just don't engage in sex, it's not a birth given right for a person to have sex.

Except in the cases where Women were raped of course

With Number 3, I definitely agree with the sentiment. However, if a mother wants to abort the child because it's a boy/girl/gay (or other superficial reasons) then it can still be done, but not on the NHS. It's a waste of staff time who could be focusing on mothers with more serious cases (i.e. conceived by rape, medical issues, financially can't support it etc) and it's also a waste of tax payers money. I think each case should be reviewed to consider all these factors and determine if it's viable for funding on NHS (I don't know if this is already done though). I know there are flaws when putting this theory into practice, and that there will always be some who don't get their case fairly reviewed...but this way we can prioritize the practice of abortion in this country. And we still wouldn't be denying the right for mothers to abort there children (no matter how frivolous it might be).

It's all the same. If the mother doesn't want the child, then it's as simple as that. If we're OK with aborting fetuses because the parents are poor and can't support it, then we should be just as OK with aborting them because the parents are homophobes and would treat the child poorly (assuming you could hypothetically test for homosexuality). If the child is unwanted, for whatever reason, it makes no sense forcing it to be born or even making the parents pay for the abortion.

Abortion is a tragedy and it would be good to eliminate it completely but using violence to restrict women automony over their own body in this matter it is wrong too.
The answer is the minimise abortions by education and not subsidising it.

It is morally abhorrent that taxpayers are forced to pay for things they may consider immoral.
If a woman wants an abortion she should pay for it herself or find someone willing to lend a hand, not rely on the violence of the state to force others to pay for correcting her own mistakes.



Taxpayers should never pay for other people abortions, even in the case of rape.

Of course the rapist on their other hand should be forced to pay for abortion of a pregnancy they caused by rape.

I agree. The rapist SHOULD be made to pay for the abortion. However I'm not sure what the process would be for enforcing such a rule, considering the rapist is already in jail and could simply refuse to pay (even when threatened with an extended sentence).

His assets should be forcibly seized.

Personally, I don't see it should be quite clear cut as that. Each case is different. Just because the end result is the same doesn't mean we should treat every case as if they were the same. Each person wanting an abortion will do so under a variety of circumstances and that should always be taken into account.

People are deciding whether or not we should have the right to 'die with dignity'. We would be allowing those with terminal illness's to end their life and be providing them with the means to do so. But that doesn't mean we are suggesting that any person has the right to end their life. Nor would it be reasonable to assume we are being unjust because we only allow those under certain circumstances to end their life. Like I said before, not everything has to be clear cut. We don't need to have a complete lack of discrimination because we want to preserve a particular ideal.

If a women wants to be so trivial with the concept of abortion, then why should the tax payer be forced to fund it? She should be able to provide a reasonable explanation and it should be decided whether or not it's viable. What those factors would be would obviously have to be decided by some sort of ethics committee or something, and it would have to be agreed by a majority that these factors are morally justifiable reasons for abortion.

Unwanted children are unwanted regardless of why they are unwanted. If you support the principle of abortion, then it is immoral to force a gay child to be born into a family of ardent homophobes who will mistreat it.

We fund abortions now simply for people who can't be ****ed to raise a kid, even if they are financially able. I don't see how that is any more deserving than people who don't want a kid for specific x y or z reason.

But that's an entirely separate issue. If a gay child is being mistreated by a family of homophobes then we remove that child from the family. As is the case with any child that is mistreated by an adult/career that is raising them.

The 'principle' of Pro-choice is that every family is given a choice of whether or not they want to keep the child. How am I violating that? I said that trivial reasons for abortion such as "I can't be bothered to raise this baby" or "I wanted a boy not a girl" should not be funded by the NHS. If that is indeed the reason for wanting an abortion, then they should go to a private clinic and carry it out there. I'm not impeding anyone's right to abort their child.

We don't fund Breast reduction/enlargement operations on the NHS. Does that mean we're violating people's right to have a Boob Job?

It's not a very large proportion of abortions that are done for "non-trivial" reasons. Generally, it's because the parents were irresponsible, got pregnant, and don't want to deal with having to raise a child. That encompasses most abortions that are carried out every year on taxpayer money. If you think only rape victims and a few other scenarios should have abortions funded on the NHS, then that is quite a different viewpoint which I doubt many people would agree on.

Considering we voted in a conservative government, I highly doubt that many people would disagree with me. If you were irresponsible and got yourself pregnant then that should not come out of the taxpayers money. There will be excpetions to this (teen mother, single parent) but again its something we would consider on a case by case basis and there will be many extenuating circumstances that would be taken into consideration before you allowed to get an abortion on the NHS. However under no circumstances would I ever think it's acceptable for the NHS to fund an abortion for a woman because she didn't want a gay baby and the same applies to woman who wanted an abortion because she didn't want a boy or a girl.

I am not voilating anyones rights by claiming that not ALL abortions should be funded by the NHS and consisdering that its MY tax money that being used here, then i feel that it is my MORAL right to say how i feel that money should be used.

How do you think the cost of carrying out an abortion stacks up against the cost of child benefits or social services provisions for 18 years?

So if the NHS doesn't provide the abortion then people will simply refuse to abort? Well that's their own decision and I can't change that. They've got other options to do so privately. Again, I never restricted their ability to do that.

I'm only focusing on JUST this issue here, and that is that that we should be more selective in those who we allow to receive abortions on the NHS. My reasoning for wanting this is because we help PAY for the service and should get a say. It's a waste of taxpayer money and this particular service should not be given to someone who is undeserving of it.

It's my belief we should consider each person individually based on their situation and consider their reasons for wanting an abortion before allowing them to do so FREE on the NHS. Not every reason is trivial, and I don't believe that only the most severe cases such as 'rape' should be considered.
HOWEVER if you want to abort a baby because you're a homophobe who doesn't want a gay child. then I don't believe we should funding that. If didn't want a girl and wanted an abortion, then I don't believe we should be funding that.

Can the government do this already? Like for example, those who refuse to pay a fine can be sent to jail but I've never heard of a case where the government has forcibly taken money from their account or their assets seized. Even when they serve their jail sentence they're still being made to pay the fine and will simply end up back in jail until their fine is payed.

I only bring this up because, if the government isn't/won't do so in those circumstances then they may not be able to in the case of forcing a rapist to pay for the abortion.

"I don't want a baby"

is a perfectly reasonable and morally sound excuse for getting an abortion on the NHS.