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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    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.
    The term "fully developed" is actually pretty self-explanatory for anyone with the vaguest education in science (probably pre-GCSE level) or a little common sense. Actually.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sophistry prevails.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    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.
    It's pretty obvious what I meant. Parasitic is a describer of the fetus, not of the human species, you complete moron. People have sex for other reasons than having kids, and that's never going to stop. The pill and condoms both fail sometimes, so there will be situations where they tried to stop it from happening, but it does anyway. The mother should not be forced to carry it for 9 months if she doesn't want it. Let me put it this way, what is the difference between humans and other animals that we kill for food? "Human" means two things, 1. that they are a part of the human species, 2. that they are a "person" who is rational and self-conscious being. The reason we give humans individual rights is not because they are a part of the species, but because they are people. Not all humans are people. Specifically, fetus' are not people. They are not capable of rational thought, and are not self-conscious. So what exactly do you find troubling about killing them, if you are perfectly fine with killing animals? If you say because they are part of the same species, then what separates them from other animals that you are fine with killing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    It's pretty obvious what I meant. Parasitic is a describer of the fetus, not of the human species, you complete moron. People have sex for other reasons than having kids, and that's never going to stop. The pill and condoms both fail sometimes, so there will be situations where they tried to stop it from happening, but it does anyway. The mother should not be forced to carry it for 9 months if she doesn't want it. Let me put it this way, what is the difference between humans and other animals that we kill for food? "Human" means two things, 1. that they are a part of the human species, 2. that they are a "person" who is rational and self-conscious being. The reason we give humans individual rights is not because they are a part of the species, but because they are people. Not all humans are people. Specifically, fetus' are not people. They are not capable of rational thought, and are not self-conscious. So what exactly do you find troubling about killing them, if you are perfectly fine with killing animals? If you say because they are part of the same species, then what separates them from other animals that you are fine with killing?
    1.Only parasites have parasitic characteristics (that's biology).


    All persons within the womb is of the human species. to say all fetuses have parasitic character, then all humans pertain that characteristic.

    However, no human shares characteristics to that of a parasite. As posted earlier, there are several benefits for the mother during pregnancy. where as a parasite provides no benefit to the host.

    Like wise, an embryo does not come from a foreign egg, but from the mother's egg. A key distinction or characteristic for any animal that is a parasite (as only parasites are the only ones who have parasitic characteristics).

    2. Not all humans are people. correct, when we stand alone we are a person.

    By definition, only humans can be a person or considered people. if you think otherwise then your use of the term is incorrect. please consider a dictionary.

    3. there is no logical reason for any one of us to no be considered human nor a person .

    4. self-concious ? are you speaking of a fetus at this point ? A person is a fetus until birth, by definition. there is not a single scientific, biological, or philosophical change that occurs at birth. If you so think so - please suggest evidence or support for this claim.

    4b. you follow zodiac signs, I'm guessing?

    5. what is rational: the simple ability to think or to use critical thinking skills to comprehend reality around us? even amongst adults the range of person's ability to comprehend is diverse - an individual in a coma can have less brain activity then a healthy fetus.

    A fetus that has ability to hear voices from within the womb and recognize his or her own mother's voice.

    5b. A blind or def or mentally challenged person does not comprehend reality as you or I. unless you fit into one of those categories (no disrespect). this adds more conflict to your claim and suggests out own abilities or inabilities do not determine if we are a person.

    6. If we consider your statement, at its core...at its root you are saying that because this human is different ( looks & acts different) they should be treated differently and have no rights. that's a prejudice. Prejudices are illogical as they are an injustice.

    7. I do not recall a post in which I indicate my self as being fine with killing animals. there are many people who respect all life forms. Regardless. a bear, dear, or other non-human life form is not a human ( which I guess your point in that question was in regards to eating other animals) . Since we are talking about humans - there is as there has been a difference between humans and other animals. we have always considered ourselves as different - then we should maintain out focus on Humans.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    1.Only parasites have parasitic characteristics (that's biology).


    All persons within the womb is of the human species. to say all fetuses have parasitic character, then all humans pertain that characteristic.

    However, no human shares characteristics to that of a parasite. As posted earlier, there are several benefits for the mother during pregnancy. where as a parasite provides no benefit to the host.

    Like wise, an embryo does not come from a foreign egg, but from the mother's egg. A key distinction or characteristic for any animal that is a parasite (as only parasites are the only ones who have parasitic characteristics).

    2. Not all humans are people. correct, when we stand alone we are a person.

    By definition, only humans can be a person or considered people. if you think otherwise then your use of the term is incorrect. please consider a dictionary.

    3. there is no logical reason for any one of us to no be considered human nor a person .

    4. self-concious ? are you speaking of a fetus at this point ? A person is a fetus until birth, by definition. there is not a single scientific, biological, or philosophical change that occurs at birth. If you so think so - please suggest evidence or support for this claim.

    4b. you follow zodiac signs, I'm guessing?

    5. what is rational: the simple ability to think or to use critical thinking skills to comprehend reality around us? even amongst adults the range of person's ability to comprehend is diverse - an individual in a coma can have less brain activity then a healthy fetus.

    A fetus that has ability to hear voices from within the womb and recognize his or her own mother's voice.

    5b. A blind or def or mentally challenged person does not comprehend reality as you or I. unless you fit into one of those categories (no disrespect). this adds more conflict to your claim and suggests out own abilities or inabilities do not determine if we are a person.

    6. If we consider your statement, at its core...at its root you are saying that because this human is different ( looks & acts different) they should be treated differently and have no rights. that's a prejudice. Prejudices are illogical as they are an injustice.

    7. I do not recall a post in which I indicate my self as being fine with killing animals. there are many people who respect all life forms. Regardless. a bear, dear, or other non-human life form is not a human ( which I guess your point in that question was in regards to eating other animals) . Since we are talking about humans - there is as there has been a difference between humans and other animals. we have always considered ourselves as different - then we should maintain out focus on Humans.
    Parasitic as a descriptor does not literally mean that what you are describing is biologically a parasite. If someone is scrounging money from you, they are described as parasitic. They are not literally a parasite. They are analogous to one though.

    Only humans can be considered as people, but what makes a human a person is not simply the fact that they are human. Human != Person. A person is capable of rational thought, as in can think, and are self-conscious, as in they know they exist. Fetus' are human but not people. People have rights, humans do not. There is no difference between killing an animal and killing a fetus, they have the same amount of rights.

    I believe that if a fetus can survive without being in the womb, as in it can survive if it was to be born, it should be classed as a person. Which it does. At 24 weeks, which is the usual time they start to survive premature births, they don't allow abortions.

    I don't follow zodiac signs? I'm sure many animals have more brain activity than a coma patient, but if the coma patient is on life support and cannot survive by themselves, it's up to the family to decide to pull the plug.

    Blind, deaf or mentally challenged people know they exist, and are capable of thought. Rational does not mean they are smart. It means they can think about things, and think of reasons for them.

    Forcing a person who does not want children into giving birth is very stupid, given that a majority of abortions happen extremely early in the pregnancy. I can understand why people would disagree with later abortions, but early term abortion is killing as much of a life as jacking off does. Also, I would think forcing a woman to give birth to a child they don't want is an injustice?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Y'all want fetuses so much yet refuse to adopt kids.

    What do you think happens to the baby if the woman is forced to carry it to term? The parent(s) can't or won't look after it. What happens then? You swoop in with your bible/Quran and rescue it? (But seriously, the Muslims on here are a disgrace, I'm actually cringing as I read through the messages. Abortion is 100% LEGAL under so many circumstances. Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. No one everyone thinks we're backwards smh).

    So yeah stop shoving your disgrace opinion of forcing unwilling people to pop out babies and start adopting refugee kids since you want to do the world oh so much good.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by airportsh8me)
    Y'all want fetuses so much yet refuse to adopt kids.

    What do you think happens to the baby if the woman is forced to carry it to term? The parent(s) can't or won't look after it. What happens then? You swoop in with your bible/Quran and rescue it? (But seriously, the Muslims on here are a disgrace, I'm actually cringing as I read through the messages. Abortion is 100% LEGAL under so many circumstances. Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. No one everyone thinks we're backwards smh).

    So yeah stop shoving your disgrace opinion of forcing unwilling people to pop out babies and start adopting refugee kids since you want to do the world oh so much good.
    1. who refuses to adopt? for myself you don't know if I am, have, etc.

    Terrible assumption. especially when there are numerous agencies that not just help with adoptions, but families in general to make it easier to have a family.

    2. if all women carry to term there is greater need to think and perhaps will be a greater thought in society about pregnancy and sex. To which a woman who carries to term may have a child up for adoption - however, since a child is most life changing event there is a chance for any couple to raise a child proper.

    3. in cases in which a parent is unable to pursue parenthood, then there are ways to maintain the best interest of the child. As she/he would after birth and before.
    There is always a way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shipreck)
    Parasitic as a descriptor does not literally mean that what you are describing is biologically a parasite. If someone is scrounging money from you, they are described as parasitic. They are not literally a parasite. They are analogous to one though.

    Only humans can be considered as people, but what makes a human a person is not simply the fact that they are human. Human = Person. A person is capable of rational thought, as in can think, and are self-conscious, as in they know they exist. Fetus' are human but not people. People have rights, humans do not. There is no difference between killing an animal and killing a fetus, they have the same amount of rights.

    I believe that if a fetus can survive without being in the womb, as in it can survive if it was to be born, it should be classed as a person. Which it does. At 24 weeks, which is the usual time they start to survive premature births, they don't allow abortions.

    I don't follow zodiac signs? I'm sure many animals have more brain activity than a coma patient, but if the coma patient is on life support and cannot survive by themselves, it's up to the family to decide to pull the plug.

    Blind, deaf or mentally challenged people know they exist, and are capable of thought. Rational does not mean they are smart. It means they can think about things, and think of reasons for them.

    Forcing a person who does not want children into giving birth is very stupid, given that a majority of abortions happen extremely early in the pregnancy. I can understand why people would disagree with later abortions, but early term abortion is killing as much of a life as jacking off does. Also, I would think forcing a woman to give birth to a child they don't want is an injustice?
    1. if you use analogy then USE/SAY something IS LIKE another thing. NOT a is b. grammatical it is different.

    STILL my child is not a parasite. not in the womb nor out. living comfortable or homeless and needing help. A person calling anyone a parasite due to baseless opinion is not becoming.

    2. does an infant know it exists? again there is no great mental difference between an infant a few days old vs. a fetus still in the womb a few days from birth. Though the science behind it is limited there is much we are learning about babies in the womb and so much more to learn.

    3. self awareness is shared among many animals besides humans. how can a characteristic shared across species identify a person only at as specific time, especially when it can be taken away while a person is alive?

    4. Many mentally challenged cant think of reasons for themselves. your frontal lobe (the decision part of the brain) doesn't fully develop until 20's which is why teens do the earnest things. still that part of your brain can be damaged (along with others) in which a person is incapable critical thoughts. Studies are ongoing to understand more.

    5. Since there is no distinction that gives actual premise or cause for a person to being human then there is not a logical conclusion to say not all humans are a person. especially since the definition of person does not pertain a premise for your description.

    6. " but early term abortion is killing as much of a life as jacking off does" this just expresses how much information you are lacking. a sperm is half chromosome than regular cell. Both reproduction cells and normal cells (such as skin cells) stay those type of cells. they don't change and the the new cells stay those type of cells. An embryo is the only time when unique cells not just grow but change into the cells that occupy your body. your cells today are the way they are because of how you developed as an embryo. only environment changes how those cells continue.

    this is a beautiful and precious time in a human's life. our most vulnerable in life. to snuff it out is an injustice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    your sentence formation was confusing to me. your explaining didn't help. lol. sorry
    Yes, unborns have relatives, such as uncles, aunts and grandparents.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There has been this frightening theme throughout history of humans defining a life based on their own convenience. It happened in the 18th century in regards to slavery. It happened in the 1940's in regards to the holocaust. I would even argue that it's happening now in regards to animal welfare. But the topic that gets dismissed most of all is abortion. It's put forward by many people (particularly the left) as the liberation of women; on the contrary, it has been, especially since the '67 act, the liberation of irresponsible parents who are not prepared to do their job.

    I'd just like to respond to the first reply in this thread (the one that states it's the woman's body and her right). The problem with the autonomy movement is that it puts the woman's rights first. It seems to me that if you're going to insist so furiously that the woman has rights, then you cannot conceivably simply brush aside or sweep away the rights to life of the child.

    And then it comes to the fundamental basis of whether the unborn child is a human life or not. Already people are triggered because I said "unborn child". They would rather use dehumanizing terms like 'fetus' or 'embryo', and that's what killers do, they dehumanize before killing their victim. The objective standpoint is that human life does begin at conception. This is widely regarded as scientific fact and it seems so plainly obvious to me that life cannot start at any other time. It doesn't start at 8 weeks, 24 weeks, or 32 weeks. To state otherwise is a subjective opinion, a.k.a. defining a life based on your own convenience.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's not just "the woman's body". It's also the child's body.

    Yes, the child may just be a "clump of cells", but so are each and every one of us.
    The child may not be conscious (for now), but if any of us fell temporarily unconscious we would hope nobody would kill us in that time.
    Regarding the "right to choose", the parents already chose to copulate in the first place, knowing that pregnancy was a risk.

    It's only in exceptional circumstances where the above wouldn't apply.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's not just "the woman's body". It's also the child's body.

    Yes, the child may just be a "clump of cells", but so are each and every one of us.
    The child may not be conscious (for now), but if any of us fell temporarily unconscious we would hope nobody would kill us in that time.
    Regarding the "right to choose", the parents already chose to copulate in the first place, knowing that pregnancy was a risk.

    It's only in exceptional circumstances where the above wouldn't apply.
    To be very honest, dying unconsciously is the best way to die. Do whatever to me when I'm unconscious it don't matter when I'm not aware.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ihatePE)
    To be very honest, dying unconsciously is the best way to die. Do whatever to me when I'm unconscious it don't matter when I'm not aware.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree it's the best way to die, but for most people it would be preferable to actually stay alive.*I presume you wouldn't advocate making it legal to kill an unconscious person whenever one feels like it.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree it's the best way to die, but for most people it would be preferable to actually stay alive.*I presume you wouldn't advocate making it legal to kill an unconscious person whenever one feels like it.*
    This is what they do, they speak from personal convenience. They couldn't care less about anybody else and retain the notion that only they matter. This progressive rejection that our actions have no immediate moral consequence is what's wrong with this country. We do things for pleasure and we do things because they suit us, and then we subsequently complain about it when it backfires. Irresponsible would be an understatement; there is an immense hatred among today's generation.
    They will not talk about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    The term "fully developed" is actually pretty self-explanatory for anyone with the vaguest education in science (probably pre-GCSE level) or a little common sense. Actually.
    Common sense and vaguest education in science indicates that a embryo is fully developed as an embryo - not dependent on functioning as an adult.

    Such a comparison is similar to suggesting that a lion cub should be able to hunt and act like a full grown lion. Scientifically/biologically we know this would not be possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, abortion should be illegal. The fetus is NOT part of the woman's body it is IN the woman's body - that is not the same thing. Not a popular view amongst the radical feminists of today I am aware.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "Pro-life" people are actually just pro-birth, and they are pro-birth because they like to control women's bodies. They couldn't care less what happens to babies after they are born. They are not offering to adopt unwanted babies and many of them are opposed to systems designed to improve the quality of life of the poor (many women who have abortions cannot afford to raise a child). Many also support the death penalty, war and unlimited access to arms. It couldn't be clearer that their stance has nothing to do with valuing human life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Too many people seem to think we should populate this world into oblivion..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    "Pro-life" people are actually just pro-birth, and they are pro-birth because they like to control women's bodies. They couldn't care less what happens to babies after they are born. They are not offering to adopt unwanted babies and many of them are opposed to systems designed to improve the quality of life of the poor (many women who have abortions cannot afford to raise a child). Many also support the death penalty, war and unlimited access to arms. It couldn't be clearer that their stance has nothing to do with valuing human life.
    The death penalty, war and gun ownership are just false comparisons. We're talking about the murder of an innocent being - THAT cancels out the death penalty for a start. Many critics of the death penalty, particularly those who oppose it on the grounds of innocents being accidentally executed, must subsequently oppose all forms of war, since war invariably ends up with innocents being killed for the sake of nations. I personally do believe it was right to fight in the Second World War. The first? No, but that's a completely different discussion for another day.

    WBZ's accusation that the pro-life standpoint has nothing to do with valuing human life couldn't be further from the truth. It's the absolute seabed of the pro-life movement and anyone who's a compassionate individual. You cannot claim to be above those who "do not value human life", when you yourself aren't even getting involved on compassionate grounds. I do not care about your body, I do not care about your heart, I do not care about your liver, I care about what's in your uterus because that is an individual human being in there, and you just decided that you own the baby. This notion of ownership is non-applicable outside of the womb, so it cannot be applicable inside the womb. The only instance of when ownership was applicable was during the 18th century when slavery was prevalent.

    If you're willing to argue that the death of a baby is more preferable to the adoption of a baby, then I have no time for you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum7)
    Too many people seem to think we should populate this world into oblivion..
    > Implying that we tackle overpopulation with abortion.
 
 
 
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.