Should Abortion be made illegal?
Scroll to see replies
Was on my phone last night hence 1 word answer
Personal choice, overpopulation, vulnerability and overload on the foster/adoption systems, and I don't believe a fetus is sentient or a 'life'
Why did you start this thread if you actually have little interest in the thoughts of others?
Now a day i have seen women just aborting the child because they don't want to take care of them?
And yet we have thousands of children in care. Imagine if every single one of those unwanted children that were aborted had been born, that's a lot of unwanted children. We have enough who are in care for whatever reason, we do NOT need more.
So no, abortion should not be made illegal.
No one has interest in my thoughts either as they don't agree with me. I don't agree with most either.
I have interest in seeing if you can defend your position enough to change my mind. So far, you haven't been able to do that.
Yeah, but a thread it supposed to be a discussion. We've all given you reasons why we believe you're wrong and you've just said 'agree to disagree' which isn't how it works when you want to take away someone's fundamental rights (and don't go on about rights of a foetus as until it's able to survive outside the mother's body it's not a human being).
It was piloted through Parliament by David Steel, now Lord Steel of the Lib Dems.
There were two main reason why Steel wanted to make abortion legal.
1. Many poor women were being seriously injured or died during botched back street abortions. In fact hospitals were filled with women who needed medical treatment due to these botched mutilations. Better off women could afford to go to qualified doctors who did abortions on the quite or went abroad to countries where it was legal. A lot of women from Ireland and Northern Ireland travel to Britain to have abortions because its still illegal in those countries.
2. Police were extorting back street abortionists leading to wide spread police corruption.
If abortions were made illegal again, many poor women and girls will again be injured or killed but the "moral" people who got it banned could sleep better.
1. Body autonomy.
2. I think it's more immoral to bring an unwanted child into this world when there are so many kids who need homes already than it is to rid your body of what is essentially a parasite.
Let's firebomb the orphanages then.
Those arguments to my mind don't justify abortion. The only one that does is the one that says abortion is not the killing of another person.
Then don't have the abortion. And is it also morally wrong to cut out a cancerous tumor that is killing you; or denying a bacterial infection its life because its trying to kill you? Until the baby is born it is little more than a parasite that can kill its host, does the host not have a right to have it removed?
Which is not 100% effective. The only truly effective method of protection is to not have sex at all, but where's the fun in that?
I can say I'm a purple flying unicorn that vomits rainbows across the land, doesn't mean I am.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Most women getting illegal abortions were not poor: the poor could not afford an abortion.
Hospitals were not being filled with women who needed medical treatment due to botched abortions. There were some botched abortions (and there still are: it's not a perfectly safe procedure even for the mother) but the number of abortions was a fraction of what it is now.
That people will go to a different country to do something illegal in their own country is hardly a justification for making something legal. We don't change our paedophile laws, for example, just because some women are going to eastern Europe to have sex with under-age boys.
Any society would be in dire trouble (see: Brazil) if they changed their laws just because the police force can't stick to the law! The way to fix police corruption is not to make an outlawed act legal, it is to sack and heavily penalise all criminal police.
Actually, although the percentage of damage done on legal abortions is far smaller than the percentage of damage done on illegal abortions, because the number of abortions is so much higher when legalised, the number of women being injured by abortion is roughly the same in either case. You don't save (many) women from being injured, you just save children from being killed.
Wanting to ban abortion is nothing more than wanting control over another person's body. What is lacking in your own lives, to make you so desperate to control others?
This is where the primary abortion debate circles around. When is a person, a person?
•
â–ş Some say as soon as conception, a person is created (these are mostly the devoutly religious, especially Christian).
•
â–ş Some say it is at the point the embryo implants into the endometrium, about eight days after conception.
•
â–ş Others say it is not until about 3 weeks, when the embryo gets a heart (and actually starts looking like more than just a blob of bio-tissue).
•
â–ş The next major time-point people look at is when the embryo gets a brain and becomes a foetus, at around nine weeks after conception. Studies show that ripping limbs off the child at this stage - as happens in typical abortion procedures - is reflected in the brain as pain.
•
â–ş After nine weeks, the child is thinking but the brain is not fully developed until after 16 weeks, which is when many scientists acknowledge that the child is self-aware and a sentient being. Many think this is when the foetus is human: it certainly looks humanoid.
•
â–ş Children aborted after around 18 weeks (by surgical removal, not vacuum) are often breathing: they have a central nervous system and are often killed by the aborter.
•
â–ş Modern procedures can keep a child alive when born 21 weeks after conception. At this point, the child looks like a baby human.
•
â–ş UK law allows the abortion of the child up to 24 weeks. In almost all cases, this is a viable human child (though would still need close medical care to survive).
•
â–ş Between 33 and 43 weeks (the variation is much greater than once thought) the child will be born. This is another milestone which many people take as the creation of a person, considering that right up to the moment of birth, the child is not a person.
•
â–ş Many countries have a law allowing for infanticide, either as complete or slight excuse for killing of a child up to two years old (this usually only applies to women). The UK used to have a formal Infanticide Act and even today a mother is unlikely to receive custodial sentence for murder of a child up to about 14 months. This shows that in many ways, a child is not a person until about a year or two after birth.
The next major group of people who propose abortion don't much care about any of this: they point to the massive world population (over 7 billion people now) and are willing to accept the killing of children to keep population down.
Wanting to ban abortion is nothing more than wanting control over another person's body. What is lacking in your own lives, to make you so desperate to control others?
I think you need to realise that people against abortion believe that the unborn child is a person. They therefore believe that anyone wanting an abortion is not only wanting control over another person's body but wanting control over their very life.
So they would ask the opposite question: what is lacking in your own lives to make you so desperate to control another's, especially that of a person who is too defenceless to control their own destiny?
•
â–ş Some say as soon as conception, a person is created (these are mostly the devoutly religious, especially Christian).
•
â–ş Some say it is at the point the embryo implants into the endometrium, about eight days after conception.
•
â–ş Others say it is not until about 3 weeks, when the embryo gets a heart (and actually starts looking like more than just a blob of bio-tissue).
•
â–ş The next major time-point people look at is when the embryo gets a brain and becomes a foetus, at around nine weeks after conception. Studies show that ripping limbs off the child at this stage - as happens in typical abortion procedures - is reflected in the brain as pain.
•
â–ş After nine weeks, the child is thinking but the brain is not fully developed until after 16 weeks, which is when many scientists acknowledge that the child is self-aware and a sentient being. Many think this is when the foetus is human: it certainly looks humanoid.
•
â–ş Children aborted after around 18 weeks (by surgical removal, not vacuum) are often breathing: they have a central nervous system and are often killed by the aborter.
•
â–ş Modern procedures can keep a child alive when born 21 weeks after conception. At this point, the child looks like a baby human.
•
â–ş UK law allows the abortion of the child up to 24 weeks. In almost all cases, this is a viable human child (though would still need close medical care to survive).
•
â–ş Between 33 and 43 weeks (the variation is much greater than once thought) the child will be born. This is another milestone which many people take as the creation of a person, considering that right up to the moment of birth, the child is not a person.
•
â–ş Many countries have a law allowing for infanticide, either as complete or slight excuse for killing of a child up to two years old (this usually only applies to women). The UK used to have a formal Infanticide Act and even today a mother is unlikely to receive custodial sentence for murder of a child up to about 14 months. This shows that in many ways, a child is not a person until about a year or two after birth.
The next major group of people who propose abortion don't much care about any of this: they point to the massive world population (over 7 billion people now) and are willing to accept the killing of children to keep population down.
Personally, I'm in the camp of "unless it can survive without medical intervention all is well", and there is somewhat of an overpopulation issue and I would rather not have another benefit leech (not that they necessarily will be).
I understand that but at what point do you change your mind? What about a two-year old child needing medical intervention to help them live through a bout of influenza?
If you are injured in a car accident and lie bleeding by the roadside, should society take the attitude with you that "unless you can survive without medical intervention all is well?"
These moral issues are rarely so simple.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
