Why abortion should be illegal

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Nope disagree. Womans body and her choice, because she and the family have to raise it and be responsible for its lifetime.
    Making it illegal would just bring more children into the world that arent wanted or increase backstreet abortions or force people to have them in extreme circumsatnces such as the child having serious medical conditions or being the result of things like rape.

    I cant see that its got anything to do with being socialist.

    Obviously the state draws the line at so many weeks for where it does become illegal. Im 100% for a womans right to choose before that date.
    Absolutely agree with you there. Abortion should still be an option for women who are not financially or emotionally stable to look after a child. If abortion is made illegal then imagine all the detrimental side effects of it: a woman who was raped may not look after the child with all her love and may not provide an appropriate living environment for the child- this has a huge impact on the child life. If we decide to ban abortion it could affect the lives of many children who may not have the lives they deserve. However, I still feel the there should be limits on when abortion can be allowed- I think you can only abort before 22 weeks in the UK...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BunnyMidnight)
    Women have a right to use their body the way they want to, if they want to have sex a lot fine, if they want to wear what every fine. The same goes for men, as long as it's not offensive it doesn't really matter, it doesn't affect you. If they want to be fit or fat who fudging cares, it's not you!!!!!
    Everyone should be able to wear whatever they want, even if some people find it offensive.
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    I just can't get behind the 'it's her body' argument. Because it's not really her body, is it? It's another body within her body. Besides, basing the argument on that results in fallacies. Why is abortion not ok beyond X week in that case? It's still 'her body'. It doesn't spawn its own existence spontaneously beyond a certain week. It doesn't make sense why abortion shouldn't be legal all throughout the pregnancy if you're using the 'it's her body' argument.I'm not saying that abortion is wrong. I'm saying that this argument is a bad one.
    The reason it ends at 24 weeks is because it is no longer parasitic to the mother, and could in rare cases survive if it was to be born so prematurely.
    (Original post by NUSTweb)
    It's about what is made lawful by God and what is made unlawful by God...Killing children is made unlawful...while animals were made for human use....there are things (harmful) which He forbade and the good things he allowed.... And idk much of fetus but being a human I can clearly understand that abortion is liking killing a kid....and secondly that kid is part of mother..... Like here in Pakistan..kids seats are charged no-where until they sit in lap of their mothers.....so seat and passport issue depends on both space and understanding.... And plants and certain animals are made lawful to eat while some animals aren't..... and a life is a life...this is your materialistic approach by which million were killed and will be killed.... Don't you read what God said in Quran? ''Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned. ''
    What is says in the Quran is irrelevant to non-muslims. To make it illegal based on religion enforces your religious principles on the rest of the population. No one should be forced into parenthood just because of someone else's religious beliefs. If the person who gets pregnant is religious, then she can decide to not get an abortion if she would like.
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The difference there is people usually end up pregnant as a result of choices they've made so it's far more reasonable to say that you have a responsibility to a 'life' you've created rather than one you haven't.There were still back alley abortion clinics before abortion was made legal but the argument that people will find away is ridiculous. People find away to murder and rape each other so shall we legalise that as well?
    Comparing murder to abortion is extremely hyperbolic. Abortion is removing a parasitic fetus, that can't think, talk, or breathe, from the mothers body. Murder is killing another fully developed human being. The difference is that fetus' don't have any rights. and fully developed humans do. Killing a fetus would be comparable to killing a dog. They have the same amount of rights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    Everyone should be able to wear whatever they want, even if some people find it offensive.
    No not really, think about it would it be acceptable if someone wore a racist t-shirt or a sexist one just because they are allowed too. No, not really as that would hurt, offend and insult many. It is the reason why I said As long as it's not hurting anyone.
    It is very similar to saying that you can punch someone, regardless or say something racist or insulting regardless. I'm not talking about petty stuff like having the middle finger on a t-shirt, I'm talking about something like a money on a t-shirt eating bananas and it says the n-word across it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BunnyMidnight)
    No not really, think about it would it be acceptable if someone wore a racist t-shirt or a sexist one just because they are allowed too. No, not really as that would hurt, offend and insult many. It is the reason why I said As long as it's not hurting anyone.
    It is very similar to saying that you can punch someone, regardless or say something racist or insulting regardless. I'm not talking about petty stuff like having the middle finger on a t-shirt, I'm talking about something like a money on a t-shirt eating bananas and it says the n-word across it.
    I think people should be allowed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, and any other label people get from what they say. I don't have to agree with someone to let them have the right to freedom of expression. The only time someone's expression should be limited is if they are threatening. There are inherent differences between punching someone and saying something offensive about a group that they are a part of. The main one being that words don't physically hurt.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NUSTweb)
    In the birth of these deformed children there is a lesson for those who are of sound health, and it teaches us of the power of Allaah Who shows His creation the manifestations of His might and the wonders that He has created. Killing and aborting them is a purely materialistic view which pays no attention to matters of religion and morals. Perhaps the existence of these deformities will make people more humble and submissive towards their Lord, and make them bear them with patience, seeking a great reward from Him.
    Physical deformity is something that Allaah has decreed for some of His slaves. Whoever bears that with patience will attain victory. This is something that happens and has always happened throughout history, but unfortunately studies indicate that the rate of physical deformity is increasing, as the result of pollution of the environment and the increase of harmful rays in the atmosphere, which was previously unknown.
    “Should not He Who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves), All Aware (of everything).[al-Mulk 67:14]
    A true pragmatic approach to this question should exclude religion from the decision making altogether. Realistically, you have to think about whether planning took place, is conceiving economically viable, is my future secure, what will the home life be like? All of these could be justifications for abortion, although, I do feel like there is something intrinsically wrong with this idea.


    I mean, say, you have a child but you have no finances nor the social care required then that can have negative long term consequences for the child. Although, plenty of people get rough starts and end up living a good life so my stance would be only of under extreme circumstances.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Recent posts just illustrate how sad pro-abortion is. that's what it is. or what it means to be "pro-choice." how strange people will argue for a thing/word associated with miscarriages and depression.

    the arguments in favor for this unfortunate act is based on unsientific comments that were not considered until someone in favor for induced abortions needed a way to dehumanize a person to make it easier for support. compare and contrast.

    Unwanted, no other way, cant afford, not fair, traped, sad.

    Ability, Achievement, opportunity...

    (Original post by Shipreck)
    Everyone should be able to wear whatever they want, even if some people find it offensive.The reason it ends at 24 weeks is because it is no longer parasitic to the mother, and could in rare cases survive if it was to be born so prematurely.


    Comparing murder to abortion is extremely hyperbolic. Abortion is removing a parasitic fetus, that can't think, talk, or breathe, from the mothers body. Murder is killing another fully developed human being. The difference is that fetus' don't have any rights. and fully developed humans do. Killing a fetus would be comparable to killing a dog. They have the same amount of rights.
    Why do developed humans have rights? we take it and others are willing to recognize it. that's how humanity began to include blacks, Jews, women, children, etc.

    A few of us humans are still "unworthy" under eyes of those who think they will loose - loose money, loose choice, loose comfort. but these do not loose life.

    what are basis of rights? what do we need to obtain rights? Answer: LIFE.

    Pre- born isnt like you though. A fetus or embryo does not look like you. a lame judgement we saw through out history but come to know is false.

    A fetus, with help of science, can survive out side the womb but we don't kill kids at that stage of life because there is an increase risk to the mother as well as how much a fetus looks like an infant.

    regardless to size or survivability, a child in the womb is a child after birth.

    question. how or why does a parasitic non-human animal turn into a human person ?

    there will never be a true answer to that question(s) as we are all a human person in the womb just as we are after birth. our looks do not determine otherwise. our color nor heritage nor age determines otherwise. just as this does not determine our worth. these factors are false reasons to put one self over another. to justify one own action.

    sad
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Recent posts just illustrate how sad pro-abortion is. that's what it is. or what it means to be "pro-choice." how strange people will argue for a thing/word associated with miscarriages and depression.

    the arguments in favor for this unfortunate act is based on unsientific comments that were not considered until someone in favor for induced abortions needed a way to dehumanize a person to make it easier for support. compare and contrast.

    Unwanted, no other way, cant afford, not fair, traped, sad.

    Ability, Achievement, opportunity...

    Why do developed humans have rights? we take it and others are willing to recognize it. that's how humanity began to include blacks, Jews, women, children, etc.

    A few of us humans are still "unworthy" under eyes of those who think they will loose - loose money, loose choice, loose comfort. but these do not loose life.

    what are basis of rights? what do we need to obtain rights? Answer: LIFE.

    Pre- born isnt like you though. A fetus or embryo does not look like you. a lame judgement we saw through out history but come to know is false.

    A fetus, with help of science, can survive out side the womb but we don't kill kids at that stage of life because there is an increase risk to the mother as well as how much a fetus looks like an infant.

    regardless to size or survivability, a child in the womb is a child after birth.

    question. how or why does a parasitic non-human animal turn into a human person ?

    there will never be a true answer to that question(s) as we are all a human person in the womb just as we are after birth. our looks do not determine otherwise. our color nor heritage nor age determines otherwise. just as this does not determine our worth. these factors are false reasons to put one self over another. to justify one own action.

    sad
    The arguments against abortion are equally unscientific, as science doesn't have much bearing on social issues. My mum is the head nurse of an abortion ward in my city. I have talked to her about this quite a lot, so I do believe I am more informed than you.
    All fully developed humans have individual rights. It would go against those rights to enforce them to let a parasitic fetus/embrio grow inside them for 9 months if they did not want that to happen. Until the fetus is able to not live outside the body(about 24 weeks), the mothers individual rights have more weight to them than the fetus, because the fetus is parasitic. If women were forced to birth then that would go against their individual rights. If you personally disagree with abortion and you get pregnant, you can have the baby. If someone else doesn't disagree with abortion, they shouldn't be forced to have it. There are records of abortion happening illegally since 1550. When they were made legal it became a lot safer for the mothers. The basis of rights is not life. Plants and other non-human animals are alive, yet we kill, process, and eat them. Unless you don't eat plants or animals I don't see how you can say that all life has rights. "question. how or why does a parasitic non-human animal turn into a human person ? "Fetus' are not non-human animals. They are human but they do not have individual rights. There is a very big difference.

    The difference between pro-choice and anti-abortion is that pro-choice don't say everyone should have an abortion but anti-abortion people say that everyone should have the child. Forcing something onto another person is by definition a breach of individual rights.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    The arguments against abortion are equally unscientific as science doesn't have much bearing on social issues
    The concept that life for a new human starts at conception is unscientific?

    Perhaps the the concept of "right to life" and immorality is unscientific but I didn't say every single point/supporting factor had to rely on science. Just certain areas in which pro-abortionists try to explain their ideals which don't carry weight.

    We may very well include science in understanding how certain social issues should be approached. This would be one.

    My mum is the head nurse of an abortion ward in my city. I have talked to her about this quite a lot, so I do believe I am more informed than you.
    how "informed" a person is determines not by who they know but how much they are willing to research both sides of an issue.

    abortiondoctors.cfm

    abortionists-speak-on-abortion

    All fully developed humans have individual rights. It would go against those rights to enforce them to let a parasitic fetus/embrio grow inside them for 9 months if they did not want that to happen. Until the fetus is able to not live outside the body(about 24 weeks), the mothers individual rights have more weight to them than the fetus, because the fetus is parasitic.
    Which law is stated in that way?

    you rely on opinion and again state that which is false. grant it, you changed a state of being into a characteristic. Pregnancy is symbiotic. There are benefits to both as the mother's body changes so she can be pregnant.

    health-benefits-of-pregnancy-and-motherhood

    boost in mood and reduced risk of cancer are most interesting.

    Humans are not characterized as parasites in biology. If we are not parasites or pertain parasitic characteristics - according to biology - then how do we transform?

    question: if science doesn't have much bearing on social issues, then why would you or anyone make a comment that can only be supported by science?

    better question: what is meant by "fully developed human?"
    See, all humans are supposed to be and look like a fetus when we are at that stage in life. That is how a person should be, and this is supported with science. Similar to a child at 8 yrs. old or even 15. They look, act, and are as they should be.

    A child with Down Syndrome, Phocomelia, or Esophageal Atresia is not "fully developed" but why should they pertain less a right to life or considered less human than you or I? Because of how they act or look?

    If women were forced to birth then that would go against their individual rights.
    those individual rights don't occur when dead. that's why life is on top. life before happiness and liberties. No one should kill another: not because they are unwanted, seen as a complication, or an inconvenience. When two people are at risk of illness or death, you try to save them both.

    Idea that a woman must give birth if pregnant is one more step in the right direction as it would be one more step towards all of us being more responsible for our own actions. A mother must take care of her kids - otherwise we find a new home for those kids. However, the mother is present with a certain amount of time in order to provide for said kids except for dire situations in which the kids and their life is put first. Such as it is after birth, so it be before.

    If you personally disagree with abortion and you get pregnant, you can have the baby. If someone else doesn't disagree with abortion, they shouldn't be forced to have it. There are records of abortion happening illegally since 1550. When they were made legal it became a lot safer for the mothers.
    As stated previously in this thread, concept of danger does not mean an item or procedure should be legal. Statement of "illegal since 1550" is questionable. One would have to look to see if induced abortions were illegal and how the law was written. How a people perceived the law as well.

    I don't know the law in 1550, but in some cases the term abortion was not included. Instead society treated pre-born -as we should treat them today- as humans...identified with science and respected is how we should treat children.

    This means other laws applied to all humans at any stage of their life. For example, a pregnant woman beaten whom then has a miscarriage (or in some way her child in the womb is killed from the attack). the attackers are identified as the cause for the child's death and then prosecuted. Some laws are this way today.

    "Forced" - I agree that no one should be forced to have a pregnancy (which anti-abortion activists do not force women to become pregnant), but a woman has a moral obligation to continue a pregnancy. Steps can be taken to reduce possibility of pregnancies. Some steps work better than others.

    The basis of rights is not life. Plants and other non-human animals are alive, yet we kill, process, and eat them. Unless you don't eat plants or animals I don't see how you can say that all life has rights.
    Concept of "rights" was to a humans. we are only considering humans. this decision affects humans.

    "question. how or why does a parasitic non-human animal turn into a human person ? "Fetus' are not non-human animals. They are human but they do not have individual rights. There is a very big difference.
    Indeed this is difference. A human is being rejected and denied their humanity for purpose of satisfying induced abortions. People get rich from abortion, people make ill judgement upon another human for sake of abortion. There upon is issue as the basis for these thoughts are:

    1. don't look like me
    2. I am not in their place
    3. does not bother me

    Same concept involved in all other civil injustices through out history.

    The difference between pro-choice and anti-abortion is that pro-choice don't say everyone should have an abortion but anti-abortion people say that everyone should have the child. Forcing something onto another person is by definition a breach of individual rights.
    I have heard mixed opinions from "pro-choice" advocates. Some who...in the words they used, they were saying everyone should have an abortion. Perhaps that is not what they should have been saying or they need to rethink their words? I took it for what they said and how they said it - I can not assume a definition or meaning that is not being stated. Especially when reiterated.

    I agree what we force onto others may be a breach of individual rights - killing a person would be included in that. However, if a person acts in a way that gets themselves into a situation (this would not be included for rape), then the are responsible for the events that follow.

    As stated above. My desire for happiness or civil liberties are not more important than your life. we can not trade your life for my happiness.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It should be up to doctors and Nurses to make a decision about the health of ALL Concerned, including relatives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horsedobbin)
    It should be up to doctors and Nurses to make a decision about the health of ALL Concerned, including relatives.
    relatives?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    Comparing murder to abortion is extremely hyperbolic. Abortion is removing a parasitic fetus, that can't think, talk, or breathe, from the mothers body. Murder is killing another fully developed human being. The difference is that fetus' don't have any rights. and fully developed humans do. Killing a fetus would be comparable to killing a dog. They have the same amount of rights.
    What you've done is what a lot of children do in exams; read the question and answer it based on what they want it to say rather than what it does say. At what point did I compare the act of murder to the act of abortion? All I said was that the argument of 'people will find a way' is a nonsense because people find a way to commit crime but that doesn't mean we should legalise everything.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What you've done is what a lot of children do in exams; read the question and answer it based on what they want it to say rather than what it does say. At what point did I compare the act of murder to the act of abortion? All I said was that the argument of 'people will find a way' is a nonsense because people find a way to commit crime but that doesn't mean we should legalise everything.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you think early term abortion should be illegal because it could be a life, then I hope you also think masturbation should be illegal because sperm could be a new life. Actual crimes are done against fully developed humans, not a few cells inside your own body.I can understand why people disagree with abortion ~16-24 weeks, but I would still rather give the mother the choice to do it than restrict them, because until 24 weeks the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    relatives?
    Yes, that's what I said. If a relative is ill, who do they go to ? A greengrocer? A blacksmith? Or a doctor or a nurse? you work it out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abortion is killing a fetus. A fetus is a human embryo after the 8th week of gestation. So it's quite clear abortion is destroying a form of human life .

    If you don't want a fetus, you should know things about safe sex.

    Abortion can be avoidable. And it should be the last option.

    Name:  1474752901438.jpg
Views: 18
Size:  56.0 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mveeramani0606)
    Absolutely agree with you there. Abortion should still be an option for women who are not financially or emotionally stable to look after a child. If abortion is made illegal then imagine all the detrimental side effects of it: a woman who was raped may not look after the child with all her love and may not provide an appropriate living environment for the child- this has a huge impact on the child life. If we decide to ban abortion it could affect the lives of many children who may not have the lives they deserve. However, I still feel the there should be limits on when abortion can be allowed- I think you can only abort before 22 weeks in the UK...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not even twenty, but I'm old enough to remember personal responsibility before it just up and died. Here's an idea to expectant mothers lumped with a child they don't particularly want - go back in time and have enough of a brain to not have unprotected sex with people. The rape case is unfortunate and deeply troubling for the woman involved, I do not doubt. But if there was a person alive today who reminded me of something awful that had been done to me, someone who looked a bit like a mugger for instance, I wouldn't be allowed to just kill them where they stood because they made me feel bad.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    If you think early term abortion should be illegal because it could be a life, then I hope you also think masturbation should be illegal because sperm could be a new life. Actual crimes are done against fully developed humans, not a few cells inside your own body.I can understand why people disagree with abortion ~16-24 weeks, but I would still rather give the mother the choice to do it than restrict them, because until 24 weeks the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother.
    The logic of children wrapped up in the verbiage of the death camps. Rubbing one off is fundamentally different, because while the sperm could be a life, it isn't. The foetus is a life. And then we get to the charming rhetoric about full-development and self-sufficiency. Most children couldn't survive if you just dumped them on their own, that doesn't give me the right to start hacking away in a primary school. And who is to say what constitutes full-development? Are the mentally ill human by your definition of the word? They don't seem to be. I know people with degenerative muscle diseases aren't. Would it be okay if I switched off Stephen Hawking?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    The logic of children wrapped up in the verbiage of the death camps. Rubbing one off is fundamentally different, because while the sperm could be a life, it isn't. The foetus is a life. And then we get to the charming rhetoric about full-development and self-sufficiency. Most children couldn't survive if you just dumped them on their own, that doesn't give me the right to start hacking away in a primary school. And who is to say what constitutes full-development? Are the mentally ill human by your definition of the word? They don't seem to be. I know people with degenerative muscle diseases aren't. Would it be okay if I switched off Stephen Hawking?
    Fully developed = can survive if it was to be given birth too. You knew what I meant, don't strawman me like a disingenuous prick. If you personally don't want to have an abortion then fine, but don't force your sensibilities on everyone else.

    "The U.S. Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimatesthat 66 percent of legal abortions occur withinthe first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percentare performed within the first 13 weeks."At 13 weeks it's basically impossible for it to be born and be able to live, and thus it is parasitic to the mother. If the mother doesn't want to have a baby for some reason, she has every right to abort it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horsedobbin)
    Yes, that's what I said. If a relative is ill, who do they go to ? A greengrocer? A blacksmith? Or a doctor or a nurse? you work it out.
    your sentence formation was confusing to me. your explaining didn't help. lol. sorry
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    The logic of children wrapped up in the verbiage of the death camps. Rubbing one off is fundamentally different, because while the sperm could be a life, it isn't. The foetus is a life. And then we get to the charming rhetoric about full-development and self-sufficiency. Most children couldn't survive if you just dumped them on their own, that doesn't give me the right to start hacking away in a primary school. And who is to say what constitutes full-development? Are the mentally ill human by your definition of the word? They don't seem to be. I know people with degenerative muscle diseases aren't. Would it be okay if I switched off Stephen Hawking?
    Comparing an embryo to Stephen Hawking now are we :rofl:

    Edit: I just read the part where you said "who is to say what constitutes full development". :rofl:

    Oh god the ignorance. It's as if we are having this conversation in medieval times. It's not as if science has broadened our objective understanding of human development at all, is it?

    Sweet, naive little boy :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    Fully developed = can survive if it was to be given birth too. You knew what I meant, don't strawman me like a disingenuous prick. If you personally don't want to have an abortion then fine, but don't force your sensibilities on everyone else.

    "The U.S. Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimatesthat 66 percent of legal abortions occur withinthe first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percentare performed within the first 13 weeks."At 13 weeks it's basically impossible for it to be born and be able to live, and thus it is parasitic to the mother. If the mother doesn't want to have a baby for some reason, she has every right to abort it.
    No one knows what you mean unless you make it clear what you mean. we don't read your thoughts or know your intent.

    Thus, what is survive? do you mean it may continue to live if taken care of and is provided medicine, food, etc.?

    Still, what a person looks like or what their condition of life or stage of life does not or should not determine kill-ability.

    Again, humans are not parasites. if you want to say we are then may you give a lesson on biology?

    Furthermore., dont want a baby? don't do things to have a baby. No human should have a ability or kill another person just because they do not want that person.

    No matter what our opinion is for that human.
 
 
 
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
Would you rather have...?
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.