The Student Room Group

Why abortion is wrong.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by da_nolo
based on what?


Based on not wanting to have a child, I need the freedom of a childless existence
Because the world is clearly not populated enough as it is without a considerably larger amount of babies being born.

Though I suppose it depends on your view of whether life begins at conception or at birth, I could respect your views while completely disagreeing with them.

One of the reasons is that even if the whole world did ban abortions then this wouldn't stop abortions taking place, in fact they'd probably have them in the back alleys by non certified doctors with the woman's survival rate severely decreasing. So if you're going to use the 'abortion is murder' argument then at least realize it's not going to stop them from happening it's just going to happen in much more dangerous situations.
Reply 382
Original post by daemonium
Why abortion is RIGHT: first off, women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, it's not yours, why should you give a damn and say what they can or can't do? Secondly, what if a girl had been raped? Would she want an abortion? Probably. Women have the right to abortion because it is their decision what they choose to do.

Stop telling women what they can or cannot do.


I don't give two craps if it is your body, if there is an individual inside. Liberty only goes far as when another well-being is threatened and here you are killing someone. I will oppose that as long as I live. Only 1% of abortion cases are to do with rape stop using the minority to justify the killings of 43 million babies.
Reply 383
Original post by Superunknown17
Because the world is clearly not populated enough as it is without a considerably larger amount of babies being born.

Though I suppose it depends on your view of whether life begins at conception or at birth, I could respect your views while completely disagreeing with them.

One of the reasons is that even if the whole world did ban abortions then this wouldn't stop abortions taking place, in fact they'd probably have them in the back alleys by non certified doctors with the woman's survival rate severely decreasing. So if you're going to use the 'abortion is murder' argument then at least realize it's not going to stop them from happening it's just going to happen in much more dangerous situations.


If you think killing people to reduce the imaginary strain we create please start with the nearest sentient being, yes I think you know what I mean...

May I remind you most people have abortions 93% to be specific due to social circumstance. It is common sense that these people would not have them if it meant their lives.
Damn straight. Two abortions down, and I couldn't be happier. What makes me laugh is that these pro-lifers clearly aren't aware that lack of access to abortion is TORTURE in the eyes of the UN: http://www.policymic.com/articles/30925/un-report-classifies-lack-of-access-to-abortion-as-torture

But obviously, these individuals know better than the UN, they're just so enlightened :rolleyes:
Original post by Converse Rocker
Can you define 'early stages' for me though? This is the problem that the law has regarding anything to do with a foetus. When does it become a human?


Well technically it's always a human isn't it? But I think a good cut-off is the time when they can survive independent of the womb. There has to be a limit somewhere.
Original post by cakefish
Well technically it's always a human isn't it? But I think a good cut-off is the time when they can survive independent of the womb. There has to be a limit somewhere.


And that's why the law is as it is. Babies can survive at 23 weeks, there was a BBC documentary about it around a year ago - but of all the babies born live, only 1 in 500 survive to leave the neonatal unit. 24 weeks is a good limit, in my opinion.
All I'm saying is. If abortion is wrong, then rape is right.
Reply 388
Original post by snowyowl
How so? Science considers sperm and eggs to be alive, but I doubt you'd consider them to be a human life.

the human child is not a sperm cell or egg cell. after these cells join and become one, you no longer have the two individual cells. you have a new single cell that is has a completely different purpose.

biology does not describe this stage of life cycle as being an egg or sperm cell, nor does biology describe a human (or any animal) zygote as being a "part of/from" the parents' body. in humans, the zygote is attached to the mother.

biology also describes the offspring as having its own dna coding.
for humans, this means a new individual.


Erm... What? I actually have no idea what you are going on about here.
"Living" = being alive.
"Having a life" = enjoying life.
what is the difference between these two?

the word life is described as something that exists. "having a life" is an expression that is based on slang and personal condition. what you describe as a person "having a life" is not the same as me.

supposedly you describe it as "enjoying life". what about a person who is in depression? they most likely are not enjoying life, so do they not have a life?

some mentally ill persons have an issue in distinguishing reality or recognizing & distinguishing life as you do. do these people "have a life". if they do not, they are not humans...or what is your point?

life=living=existence.

You said if people don't want children then they shouldn't have sex. It follows, then, that you think sex is purely for reproductive purposes.

In that case, why are my assumptions wrong? Or is it one rule for you and one for everyone else?
your assumptions are incorrect. plain and simple. If I express that those assumptions are wrong, but still hold the same views as I do, then it is possible that at some point, I changed my mind and my principal to act as I do...to do as I do... to say as I do.
Reply 389
Original post by Presenttime
Based on not wanting to have a child, I need the freedom of a childless existence


then be responsible and act accordingly beforehand.
Science doesn't support your claims, because it doesn't make claims about things like this. If you define an individual, science can tell you whether something falls under that definition or not. However your current definition of having different genetics or being a combination of two cells is not a good one.

Original post by da_nolo
the human child is not a sperm cell or egg cell. after these cells join and become one, you no longer have the two individual cells. you have a new single cell that is has a completely different purpose.

biology does not describe this stage of life cycle as being an egg or sperm cell, nor does biology describe a human (or any animal) zygote as being a "part of/from" the parents' body. in humans, the zygote is attached to the mother.


When placental trophoblast cells form, they join together and become a syncytium. The placenta also combines maternal and paternal DNA. Does this make the placenta a new individual? Why aren't you campaigning to save the placentas? The placenta is alive, we could keep it alive, but we "abort" it regularly.

biology also describes the offspring as having its own dna coding.
for humans, this means a new individual.


What about triploidy mosiac syndrome? There are many cells in those individuals' bodies that have an entirely different number of chromosomes in their cells. The abnormal cells have their own DNA coding. Does that mean half of their body is a new individual?
Reply 391
Original post by daemonium
Why abortion is RIGHT: first off, women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, it's not yours, why should you give a damn and say what they can or can't do? Secondly, what if a girl had been raped? Would she want an abortion? Probably. Women have the right to abortion because it is their decision what they choose to do.

Stop telling women what they can or cannot do.

I, a male and your superior, command you to resurrect dinosaurs.
Reply 392
Original post by edithwashere
And that's why the law is as it is. Babies can survive at 23 weeks, there was a BBC documentary about it around a year ago - but of all the babies born live, only 1 in 500 survive to leave the neonatal unit. 24 weeks is a good limit, in my opinion.

24 weeks is a good limit based on the knowledge we have now, but I do believe it's important to continue research into the development stages to identify when exactly a foetus has something resembling an intelligent 'self', and alter the cut-off point to reflect that so it's all more scientifically sound.
Original post by da_nolo
then be responsible and act accordingly beforehand.


That I agree with : )
Original post by Gray Wolf
I have a ball in my hand. I drop the ball, now with interfering without the ball it will most definitely fall to the floor. This is its natural cycle. I let go, ball falls, ball hits the ground. The fact that the ball will fall is a fact. Now let me ask you, what is the difference between me releasing the ball, catching it before it even leaves my hand and burning it and me dropping the ball and catching it half-way and burning it. The answer is; there is none! You end a natural cycle before its definite end, you kill of the emotions, the experiences it was definitely going to have; you have killed a person.

Now let me give you some statistics:

196,082 abortions in the UK in 2011
44,000,000 abortions (that is 44 million) in the world
Let me put this in to perspective, in 10 years you have killed more than the population of the united States.

7% of abortions are for either a consequence of rape or health problems to the mother. The rest is because of social reasons. This just infuriates me, if you don't kill your fellow man to steal his money why kill your own child?

Millions are killed every year because people are unable to make an emotional connection with them just because they are bound in a sack of skin. The same people that say "How could the Nazis kill millions of people" well they did it the same way you do!

(the You refers to everyone supporting abortion)

Thank you for reading,

Gray Wolf


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Sedgh-Lancet-2012-01.pdf


Perhaps you should try being in the situation yourself before judging. I can hold my hand up and say I've had an abortion. And before it I was totally against it unless the reasons outweighed it (severe disability, rape etc) I was not only using condoms but also the pill, and I got caught on due to being on medicine which no one knew interfered with the effectiveness of the pill. I'm sorry but a mothers life should be put before the baby and if I want to grow up abit more (currently 21) and I want to go study medicine then I will. I have been in a relationship with this guy for 3 years and it tore us apart. You do get attached but you have to do what's best for you and I still cry about it to this day (this was back in 2012) I don't have contact with my parents, I live alone and my partner lives 70 miles away at university. I work 42 hours a week to pay my way and no way would bringing a baby into my life be beneficial. You have to look at the bigger picture before branding everyone a dirty irresponsible slag who had a one night stand.
Reply 395
OP must be determined to be the new ImSoAcademic.
Original post by ruby321
what I meant is that you should only have sex if you are emotionally and physically ready to have a child IF it was to occur. Be an adult and take responsibility for your actions. You know full well: having sex = possibility of a child. And if you can't handle that then simply don't have sex!! It irradiates the need for all these is abortion wrong/right arguments.

Also I think a women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape if its done in the early stages of pregnancy, but rape only.


Erm, having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions, just not in a way you personally would like.

Honestly, I'm pro choice, but I can somewhat respect people who genuinely believe abortion is murder and wrong in all cases, I don't agree with them at all, but I can respect them. But I CANNOT respect people who say abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, why is "murder" suddenly acceptable because a rape happened? I'll tell you why, because it isn't about "protecting a life", it's about wanting women who dared to have consensual sex to be punished, which is completely messed up.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by ruby321
I know I'm going to get negged to death for saying something "against the standards of this day and age" and "old fashioned" But oh well.

I definitely don't blame you. I blame the society in which we live in. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and its precisely the ordeal you went through is why I think this. Women and girls everywhere who have no choice but to abort because they aren't ready for a baby as it will ruin their life... but its not easy to just forget about the whole thing as if it never happened, like it wasn't a big deal. (this is what pro-abortionists commonly think and will have you believe) And maybe there are some women don't have an emotional connection to the foetus, it doesn't exude from the fact that loads do and abortion is very damaging emotionally.

If only there wasn't such a huge pressure to find partners at such a young age, boyfriends that you wouldn't for a minute think about getting married to and starting a family with and its all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex. And at the end of this short term agreement, guy gets sex, girl gets = ? and the guy drops her just like that, for petty reasons or simply because he got bored or maybe they both had an argument. What a huge waste of time, energy and emotions not just for the girl, but for both of them. And if a baby is to occur by accident, it is very common for the guy to want nothing to do with it and there is nothing in the law to state that he must take care of it and he just gets up and leaves. The girl in the situation is screwed over in every way. Noone sees that this an unfair exchange.

I think more emphasis should be put on having sex in stable relationships, (yes, preferably marriage), where if a baby was to occur by accident or not it would be welcomed and the whole argument of abortion wouldn't even exist.

That's just me though.



It's really odd because I was slightly against it myself beforehand thinking it was just an easy way out but it's definitely not. My boyfriend luckily would love to get married etc etc, but not now. He's in the middle of a degree, I've worked my arse off to get to where I am. My mum even told me I did the right thing. She had me at 17 and I grew up in really really tough times, often went without food and had tatty clothes and my mum really struggled, I love her to bits for coping and it is doable but she decided to get pregnant. I tried everything to prevent it and I was just an unlucky one.

I can hands down say it is the hardest thing I've ever done, I had almost a month off work due to after effects too. It's not easy, and I wish people would stop assuming its an easy way out.
Original post by ruby321
What I'm saying is you know full well that having sex = possible child. So if a child was to occur you should take full responsibility for your actions if a child was to occur as you are a grown adult who can make adult decisions while knowing the consequences. (well at least you should be.)


I do know that and take the necessary precautions, and I shouldn't be punished if an accident occurs. My body, my rules, and no-one will ever take my right to control my destiny away from me.
Original post by ruby321
I know I'm going to get negged to death for saying something "against the standards of this day and age" and "old fashioned" But oh well.

I definitely don't blame you. I blame the society in which we live in. I'm sorry you had to go through all that, and its precisely the ordeal you went through is why I think this. Women and girls everywhere who have no choice but to abort because they aren't ready for a baby as it will ruin their life... but its not easy to just forget about the whole thing as if it never happened, like it wasn't a big deal. (this is what pro-abortionists commonly think and will have you believe) And maybe there are some women don't have an emotional connection to the foetus, it doesn't exude from the fact that loads do and abortion is very damaging emotionally.

If only there wasn't such a huge pressure to find partners at such a young age, boyfriends that you wouldn't for a minute think about getting married to and starting a family with and its all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex. And at the end of this short term agreement, guy gets sex, girl gets = ? and the guy drops her just like that, for petty reasons or simply because he got bored or maybe they both had an argument. What a huge waste of time, energy and emotions not just for the girl, but for both of them. And if a baby is to occur by accident, it is very common for the guy to want nothing to do with it and there is nothing in the law to state that he must take care of it and he just gets up and leaves. The girl in the situation is screwed over in every way. Noone sees that this an unfair exchange.

I think more emphasis should be put on having sex in stable relationships, (yes, preferably marriage), where if a baby was to occur by accident or not it would be welcomed and the whole argument of abortion wouldn't even exist.

That's just me though.


You can have stable relationships where the individuals simply aren't in the right place to raise children: during university, beginning of careers, planning a change of home, not old enough, ... What you are really suggesting (of course; you're pro-life) is abstinence until marriage, which is anti-progress as it causes earlier marriages, higher divorce rates, and a lack of sexual education.

You also talk about sex like a typical conservative religious type: "guy gets sex, girl gets = ?" Guess what: the girls gets sex as well. It takes two, and claiming like you are that women don't desire or enjoy sex is damaging to both genders and the attitude is oppressive to women.

"It's all purely for pleasure, enjoyment and sex"
-And what exactly is wrong with any of these?

And this stuff about the girl getting screwed over? Well, that's why abortion is available, so that women can make a conscious decision about when they want to have children. In fact, it gives the women more choice than the man, who (legally) has no say in whether his baby will be carried or not. As you say, men have the choice to be involved in a child's upbringing or not, and abortion is allowing that choice to be given to women as well. We aren't animals, we can and should control birth and it is pretty clear the prochoice view actually puts a higher value on human life than the prolife view. Prolifers, in reality, want to stop people having sex before marriage: the opinion doesn't really care about the mother or the baby. Pro-choice on the other hand wants every mother to be able to bring a child purposefully into the world and care for it, giving a special significance to the life of an individual as coming forth as a desire of two loving individuals. That would solve SO many more problems than premarital abstinence, and fosters a much more meaningful view of childbirth than the cold view put forward by pro-life activists, who do not care for the life of the baby or the mother, and fundamentally want to put a stop to sexual liberation and equality of the sexes.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending