Why abortion should be illegal

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    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.
    (Original post by Nottie)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    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.
    Last time I checked only people born with uterus and vagina, commonly known as females/women can get pregnant. I don't care who you identify as, your sex determines if you can get pregnant or not. If men were the one to give births, I'd argue that you can't separate fetus from men and that its men decision to abort or not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    How does this contradict my post?

    24 weeks = 6 months...
    Do you use a lunar year in preference to a solar one then? Doesn't that cause confusion when discussing meeting dates with other people? Perhaps you have weeks that are nearer eight days in length than seven?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    Last time I checked only people born with uterus and vagina, commonly known as females/women can get pregnant. I don't care who you identify as, your sex determines if you can get pregnant or not.
    Of course only women can get pregnant. I understand English is not your first language, but you have not responded to my post at all. Re-read it and respond to the arguments I presented.

    (Original post by Nottie)
    If men were the one to give births, I'd argue that you can't separate fetus from men and that its men decision to abort or not.
    As would I. And the pro-life campaigners would argue the opposite. Hence they are not sexist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You forgot to mention the fact that there had been cases where the fetuses couldn't have been saved anyway and the women would die. And the women also needed to die in the end because abortion was illegal.


    Just also want to point out that those bunch of cells, 70% of the time, they get miscarried.


    If a fetus is clearly a human, and killing it is murder; then:

    1. should fetuses receive their own welfare, eg money and housing, before they were born?
    2. Should a pregnant woman be charged extra on a flight because it's two instead of one human?
    3. Should fetuses be given and required to carry a passport?
    4. Should age be counted from the moment of conception?
    5. Should the fetus be arrested for violation of any law? For example, you cannot insert yourself to someone's vagina without their consent; so can a woman potentially sue her fetus for rape?
    I don't believe abortion should be made illegal but regarding questions 2 and 5...
    Are you high?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Do you use a lunar year in preference to a solar one then? Doesn't that cause confusion when discussing meeting dates with other people? Perhaps you have weeks that are nearer eight days in length than seven?
    So your objection is that I said 6 months instead of 5.5 months? I think this is the most pointless debate I've ever had on TSR. In fact, I suspect you actually misread my original post and are now trying to save face.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    It's just like your opinion right now. Why do you have it if it's completely ignored by Most of people here?
    What on earth are you talking about?

    (Original post by Nottie)
    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.
    How does talking about a foetus without talking about the woman carrying it show a unfavourable view of women? Why is the default feminist position to call something sexist if they have no logical rebuttal? Yes a foetus is inside a woman body but it's not simply another part of her body.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It depends...if you're religious and you hold the belief that, just as God gave us his only son as a gift, that all life is a gift and sacred (sanctity of life) then no abortion is wrong.

    However, if you take a more Utilitarian stance on the matter and consider the overall happiness or 'satisfaction of preferences' then abortion is fully permissible a Utilitarian or someone who takes such a stance would not consider the 'bunch of cells' or even the fully formed baby to be able to exert what they call 'preferences' or in other words a foetus cannot actually exert any preferences over what happens to it. It is not sentient.

    A third take one could have is pretty simple....your body, do what you want with it.

    Finally, if one took a more Kantian approach then they would say that in order for anything, take for example abortion to be moral then it would have to be universal, in other words, every person must be able to do that action without causing absolute chaos. An easy way of understanding this would be stealing. Kant would say stealing is never right as if every person stole then the world and society would not be able to function. One taking this philosophy further may say abortion can never be right as if every person aborted then there would be no children.

    Kant does however allow us a little more wiggle room with such instances like abortion, he coined the term the 'hypothetical imperative' which could i think be applied to abortion in the form of 'one can only abort if they were raped' or other such factors, this would not make the actions necessarily bad in certain circumstances.

    PLEASE NOTE: im just an A level student so please point out any inadequacies in the theory, feedback appreciated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    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.
    Like I said, the law has the final decision on this and abortion has to be legally permissible otherwise it's a serious criminal offence. There is no such thing as "abortion on demand" here in the UK.

    It of course does matter what we believe, because we can only decide on what the law should be through discussion and debate. At a time where many people believe the abortion limit should be lower than 24 weeks and where there are real discussions on how abortion is supported in other countries through international development work and so on, it's extremely relevant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Archiea-g)
    It depends...if you're religious and you hold the belief that, just as God gave us his only son as a gift, that all life is a gift and sacred (sanctity of life) then no abortion is wrong.
    There are perfectly reasonable secular reasons for opposing abortion. Just as there are plenty of religious people who have a variety of views on its use. There's nothing worse than bogging this down in a faith vs secular morality argument.

    However, if you take a more Utilitarian stance on the matter and consider the overall happiness or 'satisfaction of preferences' then abortion is fully permissible a Utilitarian or someone who takes such a stance would not consider the 'bunch of cells' or even the fully formed baby to be able to exert what they call 'preferences' or in other words a foetus cannot actually exert any preferences over what happens to it. It is not sentient.
    Yes, and of course that's a valid argument. However it's not particularly far away from rationalising the historical legality of infanticide, where heads of households could happily reject a born baby and it would be placed outside to die of exposure.

    If you were to be strictly Utilitarian about things, then you'd have to bring in other factors too: the incentive to increase the population base, or even to perhaps reason in favour of abortion that it may effectively work as a form of eugenics, given that I expect there is a socio-economic difference in who is having abortions.

    Finally, if one took a more Kantian approach then they would say that in order for anything, take for example abortion to be moral then it would have to be universal, in other words, every person must be able to do that action without causing absolute chaos. An easy way of understanding this would be stealing. Kant would say stealing is never right as if every person stole then the world and society would not be able to function. One taking this philosophy further may say abortion can never be right as if every person aborted then there would be no children.

    Kant does however allow us a little more wiggle room with such instances like abortion, he coined the term the 'hypothetical imperative' which could i think be applied to abortion in the form of 'one can only abort if they were raped' or other such factors, this would not make the actions necessarily bad in certain circumstances.
    Let's not forget Kant also spoke against using human beings as means to an end and was a great believer in human worth and its actions being the only source of moral good. He may of course have denied that unborn children lack agency at the time - but equally, so does a sleeping man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    There are perfectly reasonable secular reasons for opposing abortion. Just as there are plenty of religious people who have a variety of views on its use. There's nothing worse than bogging this down in a faith vs secular morality argument.



    Yes, and of course that's a valid argument. However it's not particularly far away from rationalising the historical legality of infanticide, where heads of households could happily reject a born baby and it would be placed outside to die of exposure.

    If you were to be strictly Utilitarian about things, then you'd have to bring in other factors too: the incentive to increase the population base, or even to perhaps reason in favour of abortion that it may effectively work as a form of eugenics, given that I expect there is a socio-economic difference in who is having abortions.



    Let's not forget Kant also spoke against using human beings as means to an end and was a great believer in human worth and its actions being the only source of moral good. He may of course have denied that unborn children lack agency at the time - but equally, so does a sleeping man.
    I agree with all your points, i'm sorry if i came accross as pitching secularity and religion against each other on this, there are reasobns for and against for both secular and religious thinkers. All i was trying to show is that in traditional religions there tends to be a far more 'against' approach to abortion, which one can see in the holy texts of each religion, Bible, Quran etc.

    Thanks for replying though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Abortions should still be legal under the circumstances the woman is sexually abused, or changes her mind about having a child. People who want to make abortions illegal don't realize what pressure the woman will be at should she be forced to continue having the child, regardless of rape or not.

    How would you feel if you were a woman who didn't want to have a baby, yet forced to take care of it, spend thousands of pounds to take good care of it or send it for adoption when you don't feel comfortable doing it in the first place? And what will the child say when they find out their biological origins? Not to mention that the world population is constantly growing, and there is a constant demand for resources to keep the world population healthy and ready to learn. The lack of abortions will also increase the pressure to sustain the world population.

    The people who think abortions should be illegal also sometimes feel the need to capitalize on the child as a valuable asset under the circumstances of abortion, and that angers me when they put that first compared to women put under pressure when she can't abort when she has a good reason to - These parents aren't ready to have a child.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    https://youtu.be/cuJJowJikdk?t=4m25s


    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...*
    If I have got this straight, you are making the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard against abortion. I am not someone who would consider abortion as a personal option, and I am no socialist, but abortion has to be a personal choice. What I disagree with is the irresponsible attitude to pregnancy not the fact that abortion should be available, there are many reasons why abortion should be performed, what it shouldn't be is a lifestyle choice. We all have responsibilities, if a person can be irresponsible then the law should make these people infertile.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Archiea-g)
    It depends...if you're religious and you hold the belief that, just as God gave us his only son as a gift, that all life is a gift and sacred (sanctity of life) then no abortion is wrong.
    Religion has no say in abortion today. The opinion of the theist was formally disregarded in 1967.

    (Original post by Archiea-g)
    However, if you take a more Utilitarian stance on the matter and consider the overall happiness or 'satisfaction of preferences' then abortion is fully permissible a Utilitarian or someone who takes such a stance would not consider the 'bunch of cells' or even the fully formed baby to be able to exert what they call 'preferences' or in other words a foetus cannot actually exert any preferences over what happens to it. It is not sentient.
    It's impossible to solve this with utilitarianism as we cannot know with any degree of certainty where most utility (or harm) would lay. For all we know, we have avoided the next Hitler and legalising abortion was correct or, conversely, we may have aborted the next Einstein.

    (Original post by Archiea-g)
    A third take one could have is pretty simple....your body, do what you want with it.
    They don't do it, the taxpayer funds the NHS to do it. And a major aspect of the debate revolves around whether the foetus is in fact the woman's body.

    (Original post by Archiea-g)
    Finally, if one took a more Kantian approach then they would say that in order for anything, take for example abortion to be moral then it would have to be universal, in other words, every person must be able to do that action without causing absolute chaos. An easy way of understanding this would be stealing. Kant would say stealing is never right as if every person stole then the world and society would not be able to function. One taking this philosophy further may say abortion can never be right as if every person aborted then there would be no children.

    Kant does however allow us a little more wiggle room with such instances like abortion, he coined the term the 'hypothetical imperative' which could i think be applied to abortion in the form of 'one can only abort if they were raped' or other such factors, this would not make the actions necessarily bad in certain circumstances.
    This debate can only be solved scientifically and certainly not with 18th century ethics that has no bearing on morality today. Kant was a founding father of modern moral philosophy but his influence in 2016 stops there. The scientific discoveries required to bury this debate once and for all are, in no particular order:

    -the exact moment consciousness arises
    -the exact self-awareness and intelligence a foetus has at varying weeks of growth
    -the ability to predict a foetus' future based on genes/assumed nurture (a la Gattaca).

    Until then (and we are an incredibly long way off) it stands to reason that abortion ought to remain legal. The burden of proof to criminalise it is on the anti-abortion supporters as far as I can see.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    If I have got this straight, you are making the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard against abortion. I am not someone who would consider abortion as a personal option, and I am no socialist, but abortion has to be a personal choice. What I disagree with is the irresponsible attitude to pregnancy not the fact that abortion should be available, there are many reasons why abortion should be performed, what it shouldn't be is a lifestyle choice. We all have responsibilities, if a person can be irresponsible then the law should make these people infertile.
    I showed a video thats true, and why is this forum still active.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    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.
    For me i'd say it very much depends on the situation. One of the common reasons for late term abortions is a medical issue with the baby (such as brain damage or a long term medical condition) or a high risk of death if the pregnancy was to continue. When I would say I don't agree with it is if the woman commits to the pregnancy, prepares for the baby etc, etc and then 5 months later decides she doesn't want to do it. termination should not be avaliable to her. But she should be given additional support. because at that point after all that commitment there must be something going on and I feel she would most likely regret her decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZoëC)
    It is often safer to abort than to go through with a pregnancy that may pose unavoidable risk to mother and baby - sure if she keeps a baby then miscarries it's not 'killing' the baby, but the result of this could result in harm to the mother, which would've been avoided with an abortion. It is unfair to make the call here suggesting that it is worth risking one fully established life on the off chance that a new one may come of it.
    I was not suggesting waiting for a miscarry but to perform an operation that can save both, where an operation would be necessary. To take steps towards reducing risk too. Miscarries are still tricky in the sense of why they occur and best means to prevent them. Measures can be taken to work with the pregnancy to ensure it goes through term. doing so would not compromise a doctor's job.

    Would you say there is a moral difference between killing a pre-born baby prior to a problem occurring vs. the baby passing as a result of treatment?

    What might you think is a, condition that risks a mother's life in pregnancy?

    I understand your point, but that is not the fault of the assault victim, you are suggesting that they may be hiding the assault, which they may well do, because many rape victims are shunned from communities, rejected by their families, or even killed as there are still many that believe the victim is to blame for their assault. Of course some rape victims will happily choose to keep the child, but it is unfair to force a standardize coping method upon all victims (e.g suggesting they will get over it or be happier if they have a child conceived through their assault) and thus, it is unfair to suggest that victims should keep the children as if to abort them is a destruction of evidence that somehow showing the victim to be condoning their attacker's behavior.
    yet no reason to kill another person. person A is being shunned because of what person B did, which resulted in there being person C. killing person C does not negate condition of person A. Nor does it minimize actions by person B.

    We can recognize that person C is not A or B and we can shut down any talk/gossip as killing person C would not stop talk/gossip. lets consider it. if people are "shunning" because someone got raped. pregnancy or the termination of pregnancy does not eliminate rape.

    Furthermore, if one is not able to justify killing person C after birth how would killing person C be justified prior to birth?

    I had the privilege learning from a rape victim: who stated that all things that happened afterwards that dealt with examination for her private felt like a second violation.

    No one is suggesting a person will be "happier." However, putting others first during times of depression does help with our own stresses.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    1] A foetus isn't technically a life
    to science, that child is life.

    2] Even if said thing was saved can you guarantee it a good quality of life as having seen the cluster **** the care system is sending one there isn't exactly a blessing.
    Can you guarantee that for yourself? By what merrit do you qualify "quality life?"

    the poster isn't saying shoot a child. Once again these aren't alive, atleast not at said stage anyway.
    Are you saying they are dead?

    And plenty become depressed having said child whats your point?
    And plenty more have not. And plenty of help for those who do. Would you justify killing a 2 month child if a mother was "depressed?"


    would one agree abortion can be a way to hide an assault?
    More tripe... in no conceivable way can anyone argue an abortion hides a crime. Removes the result maybe but no more.[/QUOTE] Ha! actually abortion does not remove result, a woman is still raped and still has to deal with mental hardships besides what physical trauma there is.

    http://clinicquotes.com/woman-pressu...ions-husbands/

    Do not forget, that if rape was incest, a girl might not be able to verbalize how she became pregnant.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 30, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.