Why abortion should be illegal

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #ChaosKass)
    Abortion is completely immoral. Just think of the number of potential Einsteins, Churchills etc that have been murdered in the name of "right to choice".
    And all the thieves, murderers etc.??

    Personally I abhor abortion in most cases but I think the law should stay how it is because it’s a deeply personal issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "It's my body"; kills a child's body.

    Some of you say you're pro-choice, but you're not really giving the child a choice whether to be killed or not huh? Smartasses.

    I only support rape victims. The vast majority of abortions are performed due to immaturity, stupidity, or for convenience.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emi.hopkins)
    If you call giving them money 'support' then you've got the wrong idea. I'm on about sleepless nights, changing nappies, giving up schooling, uni, or a job for a while to take care of a child that you didn't intend on having. A guy can pay in some money and not have to bring the child up, the women rarely get that choice.
    I do call giving money support, it's a fact. Women have that choice right now, they can abort a baby; a man is at a woman's mercy. Why do people insist on using rare cases as examples, very few females give up uni or school to have children, most take time off of work and then go back.

    If you don't want to have a child then use contraception. Let me just answer some of your inevitable replies:

    'Contraception sometimes fails' - very rarely do contraceptions fail, you also have the option of using multiple.

    'You could say the same to a man' - yes you could but after sex has occurred a man is left with no choice, a woman still has a choice.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I do call giving money support, it's a fact. Women have that choice right now, they can abort a baby; a man is at a woman's mercy. Why do people insist on using rare cases as examples, very few females give up uni or school to have children, most take time off of work and then go back.

    If you don't want to have a child then use contraception. Let me just answer some of your inevitable replies:

    'Contraception sometimes fails' - very rarely do contraceptions fail, you also have the option of using multiple.

    'You could say the same to a man' - yes you could but after sex has occurred a man is left with no choice, a woman still has a choice.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not talking about now, because women have the choice to abort now, I'm talking about if they didn't have that choice.

    I'm not using the 'rare cases', bringing up any child is hard no matter who you are, ask your mother.

    Of course money is a type of support- financial support, but if a woman (in a land where abortion is illegal) was forced to bring up a child they never wanted, a man should be made to bring it up to?? It only makes sense! Considering they played equal parts in creating the child.

    And regarding contraception, the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy, is to not have sex. So unless everyone stopped having sex, then there would always be risk to pregnancy, and always a few who get pregnant who didn't want to, and therefore always people who because of their circumstances, would like or need an abortion?

    What about rape?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirKyrgystan)
    It seriously disturbs me that we are still having this discussion in the 21st century. Where do we draw the line if we start forcing women into parenthood because it offends our sensibilities? How about women start forcing absentee fathers into marriage & living with the child until 18? because y'know, it's immoral and un-christian to abandon a family like that without trying to make it work, men can make a stupid selfish decision and ruin the future of that poor child, think of that child's potential to cure cancer, all gone to waste because the dad wasn't around. (and yes I am reversing a common argument anti-abortionists hold)
    Finally, someone who says it all!!!

    Abortion is a personal issue- just because one woman's actions offend a certain amount of the population it doesn't mean that we should make it illegal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emi.hopkins)

    I'm not using the 'rare cases', bringing up any child is hard no matter who you are, ask your mother.
    You were talking about people dropping out of school/uni and quitting a job, those are rare cases.

    (Original post by emi.hopkins)
    Of course money is a type of support- financial support, but if a woman (in a land where abortion is illegal) was forced to bring up a child they never wanted, a man should be made to bring it up to?? It only makes sense! Considering they played equal parts in creating the child.
    I could so easily rephrase that:

    'If a woman can authorise an abortion surely a man should too? It only makes sense! Considering they played equal parts in creating the child.'

    (Original post by emi.hopkins)
    And regarding contraception, the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy, is to not have sex. So unless everyone stopped having sex, then there would always be risk to pregnancy, and always a few who get pregnant who didn't want to, and therefore always people who because of their circumstances, would like or need an abortion?

    What about rape?
    Yes contraception does fail from time to time but it's incredibly rare, particularly if you used more than one.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirKyrgystan)
    It seriously disturbs me that we are still having this discussion in the 21st century. Where do we draw the line if we start forcing women into parenthood because it offends our sensibilities? How about women start forcing absentee fathers into marriage & living with the child until 18? because y'know, it's immoral and un-christian to abandon a family like that without trying to make it work, men can make a stupid selfish decision and ruin the future of that poor child, think of that child's potential to cure cancer, all gone to waste because the dad wasn't around. (and yes I am reversing a common argument anti-abortionists hold)
    Your logic makes no sense because you're skipping a step. You talk about forcing absentee fathers to stay around but if you want to keep it Christian then people shouldn't be having sex out of wedlock. If a dad to be says that he's leaving and the mother keeps the baby anyway she is solely responsible for any negative consequences the child faces.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, think I already commented on this click-bait thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Your logic makes no sense because you're skipping a step. You talk about forcing absentee fathers to stay around but if you want to keep it Christian then people shouldn't be having sex out of wedlock. If a dad to be says that he's leaving and the mother keeps the baby anyway she is solely responsible for any negative consequences the child faces.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd say you're the one skipping a step, as you're implying a father cannot leave if in wedlock. I think the millions of divorced and separate partners around the globe would disagree strongly with that logic. Besides, ignoring the fact that when a father leaves, the potential life and achievements of the kid disappear too as a result of the lost financial and parental contributions, is the same as disregarding the potential life and achievements of a fetus. Yet like I said, we do not force fathers to remain in the family home, and we sure as hell do not force women into having a child they do not want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emi.hopkins)
    I'm not talking about now, because women have the choice to abort now, I'm talking about if they didn't have that choice.

    I'm not using the 'rare cases', bringing up any child is hard no matter who you are, ask your mother.

    Of course money is a type of support- financial support, but if a woman (in a land where abortion is illegal) was forced to bring up a child they never wanted, a man should be made to bring it up to?? It only makes sense! Considering they played equal parts in creating the child.

    And regarding contraception, the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy, is to not have sex. So unless everyone stopped having sex, then there would always be risk to pregnancy, and always a few who get pregnant who didn't want to, and therefore always people who because of their circumstances, would like or need an abortion?

    What about rape?
    correct. no sex means no pregnancy. responsiblility falls on two involved. in a world where abortion is illegal society would need to follow and support a responsible life style not today's loose goose which has also given rise to high percent of population having std.

    agree support needs to be had between both parents, but no woman would be forced to "bring up" a child since there is adoption. and in future, if we keep to the pro life frame of things, scienctific study may advance to limit length of time for pregnancy w/o killing a child.

    like today it is unfavorable to have parents put little to no effort in parenting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Your logic makes no sense because you're skipping a step. You talk about forcing absentee fathers to stay around but if you want to keep it Christian then people shouldn't be having sex out of wedlock. If a dad to be says that he's leaving and the mother keeps the baby anyway she is solely responsible for any negative consequences the child faces.
    may you describe your sentence meaning? what is meant by responsible?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really believe in abortion. It doesn't make sense to me why a pregnant woman would want to kill a healthy unborn child. The unborn child doesn't even have a say whether to live or die. Also there also other options other than abortion. If you don;t want to raise the child who is your own flesh and blood, place the child on adoption for someone else to take responsibility. There are couples who can't get pregnant and would appreciate young child to have as their own.

    There are always other options than abortion.

    Its sounds so irresponsible to get pregnant and then request an abortion when the unborn child doesn't even have to be raised by the mother.
    I think its cool that through sex life can be born but then you want to kill life because you don't want "it" like the the unborn child doesn't share your DNA and didn't come from you? (Mother)

    So the unborn baby is just an "it"? Isn't "it" human? Didn't we all start as "it"?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    I don't really believe in abortion. It doesn't make sense to me why a pregnant woman would want to kill a healthy unborn child.
    Why are you assuming they are healthy?
    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    The unborn child doesn't even have a say whether to live or die.
    If the child did have a choice, is it really going to choose to die?
    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    Also there also other options other than abortion. If you don;t want to raise the child who is your own flesh and blood, place the child on adoption for someone else to take responsibility. There are couples who can't get pregnant and would appreciate young child to have as their own.
    What if giving birth presents an extreme danger to mother and/or child? And saturate social services even more? There are plenty of children out there waiting to be adopted. There's no shortage of children for infertile couples.

    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    Its sounds so irresponsible to get pregnant and then request an abortion when the unborn child doesn't even have to be raised by the mother.
    I think its cool that through sex life can be born but then you want to kill life because you don't want "it" like the the unborn child doesn't share your DNA and didn't come from you? (Mother)

    So the unborn baby is just an "it"? Isn't "it" human? Didn't we all start as "it"?
    Nobody 'wants' to kill an unborn child as such, the decision isn't often taken lightly. Who cares what it 'sounds' or 'seems' like.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Why are you assuming they are healthy?
    I like to believe majority are healthy but I don't memorize the statistics. Healthy as in no lethal diseases. Workers/doctors usually can predict whether the baby will be healthy or not. Pregnant women do abort healthy unborn children sometimes. Not every unborn child is unhealthy so I can assume an unborn child is/can be healthy if you get what I'm sayin.
    If the child did have a choice, is it really going to choose to die?

    Exactly? Are we on the same page or something? I think it is a sad way for an unborn child to go. Forming/ed in the mother's womb and then to be ripped apart at the mother's request.


    What if giving birth presents an extreme danger to mother and/or child? And saturate social services even more? There are plenty of children out there waiting to be adopted. There's no shortage of children for infertile couples.

    I don't know. Are you implying that majority of pregnancies are dangerous?My point is life is precious.

    Nobody 'wants' to kill an unborn child as such, the decision isn't often taken lightly. Who cares what it 'sounds' or 'seems' like.
    I said that I think it sounds irresponsible to request an abortion based on wants? Obviously I care, lol I am the "who" so who cares, cares.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    It doesn't make sense to me why a pregnant woman would want to kill a healthy unborn child.
    To save her own life, perhaps?

    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    There are always other options than abortion.
    Options like dying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    To save her own life, perhaps?



    Options like dying.
    options like modern medicine that can help prevent two deaths. otherwise, the most common abortions are based on wants not life or death. even a small population that share a risk does not justify the whole population getting an abortion just because they think they are being inconvenienced.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    options like modern medicine that can help prevent two deaths.
    Don't hide behind glib generalisations. The situation I mentioned is one where two doctors believe the mother is likely to die if she goes through with the pregnancy and she can only be certainly saved if she undergoes an abortion. Now, how can modern medicine save her without an abortion, bearing in mind the doctors concerned are practising modern medicine and are not witch doctors?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Why are you assuming they are healthy?

    If the child did have a choice, is it really going to choose to die?


    What if giving birth presents an extreme danger to mother and/or child? And saturate social services even more? There are plenty of children out there waiting to be adopted. There's no shortage of children for infertile couples.


    Nobody 'wants' to kill an unborn child as such, the decision isn't often taken lightly. Who cares what it 'sounds' or 'seems' like.
    those who make money from abortions (clinics, politicians, etc. ) have been trying to convince the population that getting an abortion is the easiest decision ever. no physical or mental threats to woman health. nothing to cry about or worry.

    but thousands cry each year as they realize their mistake - these women all voice their worries and say "they had no choice."

    there goes the whole pro choice claim. one big lie. no one cares about the woman after an abortion - that's why some clinics don't have therapists to reference.

    I haven't been to or looked at all clinics mind you, so I am not able to say all. but I doubt that connection is there.

    anyone want to be pro choice? then abortion clinics should offer non-abortion references for women who don't know.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Why are you assuming they are healthy? .
    why assume they are not?

    .
    If the child did have a choice, is it really going to choose to die? .
    that's the point right? why abortion is a lie. no choice for all parties involved.


    [quote] What if giving birth presents an extreme danger to mother and/or child? And saturate social services even more? There are plenty of children out there waiting to be adopted. There's no shortage of children for infertile couples. [quote] so are you to kill the kids in social service?

    one lie after another. social services can be reformed to help all. otherwise I known several men who grew up in local boys home who had not the chance to know parents while others could not be kept by their parents.

    no life is easy and that's no excuse to kill. otherwise let's bring back totalitarian govt. to choose when we may live or die. surely you'd trust them to say when you are wanted or a health risk to others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirKyrgystan)
    I'd say you're the one skipping a step, as you're implying a father cannot leave if in wedlock. I think the millions of divorced and separate partners around the globe would disagree strongly with that logic. Besides, ignoring the fact that when a father leaves, the potential life and achievements of the kid disappear too as a result of the lost financial and parental contributions, is the same as disregarding the potential life and achievements of a fetus. Yet like I said, we do not force fathers to remain in the family home, and we sure as hell do not force women into having a child they do not want.
    Well if we're keeping it Christian then no, a father can't leave in wedlock. The simple fact is, post sex men are powerless and can't eradicate their mistake, women can and that's wrong


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
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.