Why abortion should be illegal

It's OK.

Since you can't spell, I don't really expect you to comprehend texts let alone producing arguments on your own.

A religious world-view almost always is against abortion not because the moral content of the act is wholly contained in a religious morality seen as antiquidated by the modern atheist progressive and therefore free to be left behind, rather a religious world-view enshrines absolutely the sanctity of life doctrially: it demands its respect rather than placing it subject to scientific definition. In other words don't be put off by the religious defence, you young staunchly-atheistic, modern young reader.

It's OK.

Since you can't spell, I don't really expect you to comprehend texts let alone producing arguments on your own.

Delusional.

Religions often oppose abortion because most major religions were created by men who wished to control women. It's the exact same reason why the "religious world view" opposes premarital sex, divorce, or even rape.

Scientifically-speaking, a "life" isn't well-defined so no-one is arguing that at 24 weeks it becomes a life, but rather that this "being" starts to feel and think and thus shouldn't be aborted. You want a scientific basis? There you go - science tells you when a fetus is developed enough to feel pain and have thoughts.

I'd also like to point out the fact that you haven't produced any argument at all, but rather just asserted that the religious view is the correct view.

Delusional.

Religions often oppose abortion because most major religions were created by men who wished to control women.

Do you want to go over again how we should charge foetuses for seats on flights?

You haven't understood what you just quoted. Read it again.

Do you actually have a rebuttal or are you too dense to produce any?

Oooh so you're one of those people who would just shout "YOU'RE WRONG" and leave it at that.

Just to make this clear for you, the religious argument didn't fail because they defined "life" incorrectly or because it's really just an opinion and not an argument, but the fact that it's not actually being used at all.

"All lives are sacred", except lives that aren't animals, except animals that aren't humans, except humans who have committed certain crimes/people who attempted to murder me/enemies from a country we're fighting.

If you do, unlike your religious peers, apply the principal to all lives, then you can start forming an argument. Why are lives sacred per se? Why are lives sacred but not other things? Why does something being "sacred" means it cannot be terminated in a certain state on Earth?

But I highly doubt you actually uphold that "religious world view" anyway - unless you're a robot, you will have murdered other lives. So to form an argument, you will need to then explain why a human life is sacred but not a chicken's.

And your religious peer already responded to that - animals who aren't humans can be murdered because God said so.

I don't think we should put a bunch of cells that will eventually become a human over an actual living breathing human, with a life, goals and dreams that objects to having something unwanted growing inside her. It's absolutely absurd. I have absolutely no problem with early term abortion (you're destroying a bunch of cells). It's when it gets to later on and the baby is pretty much fully developed and then the mother just changes her mind. (some countries still do it) Like ***** please. you had months to know what you wanted!

So you don't agree with the UK's law of abortion up to 6 months of pregnancy? That's certainly not "early term pregnancy" - it's almost the final trimester.

I don't really have much of a problem with people who say "a foetus before x stage of development can be aborted freely". It's the ones who suggest there should be regulation of abortion, but with exceptions. That's, as far as I can see it, an admission that you're depriving life. While obviously that's a reasonable medical judgement to make where, say, the mother's life is at risk, how you can possibly justify it in cases of sexual assault is beyond me..

That is not an accurate reflection of the UK law on abortion, as you must know.

Feel free to describe a more accurate reflection of the law rather than just objecting, which I cannot respond to.

Unless there is substantial risk to the mother's life, abortion can only be performed on a foetus that is younger than 24 weeks gestation (and then only in an NHS hospital), and the agreement of two doctors is required. Only 8% were performed beyond even thirteen weeks in 2014, and only 1 in a thousand (just 211) went beyond 24 weeks (and all to save the mother).

If you believe the foetus to be a life, along with the moral obligations that should prompt, then these things are hardly significant.



Actually in this country, it's up to the law - and in most cases, the judgement of doctors.

Haha they get to 'express their opinion' - it's essentially pointless considering it can be completely ignored. Nobody was talking about woman's body, we're talking about a foetus.



Posted from TSR Mobile

Doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe. It's not your body so your Opinion doesn't matter.

And in this country men have no saying on the final decision. It's women decision supported by signature of 2 doctors.

It's just like your opinion right now. Why do you have it if it's completely ignored by Most of people here?
It's sexist to talk about fetus and leave out the woman. The fetus is in her body, it can even lead to woman's death. You can't talk about the two separately.

Why are you trying to spin this into a feminist issue? Gender is irrelevant to the principle that any person ought to have control over what they do to their body. I also agree that it is absurd to try and separate woman and foetus but it is certainly not sexist. Pro-life campaigners would use the same arguments if men fell pregnant rather than women.