Why abortion should be illegal

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    Sorry, but you are arguing from convenience. Whatever happens to the child after birth is irrelevant. Nobody has the right to end a life because they think it would be good for him/her. That is the epitome of entitlement. If you are arguing for abortion at all, you have picked a side. It is indeed black and white; if it truly is just a clump of cells, then why are people offended when the pro-life side accuses abortionists of using it as a primary method of birth control, and if it is a human being, then why are people okay with aborting it? These are interesting questions that need to be answered.

    I agree, it is absolutely crucial that we deter people from having children they cannot support, either financially or physically. We do this by keeping a strict moral code. The code before the destruction of Christianity after the first world war was indeed life-long marriage. Unfortunately, marriage is now diminishing, and we're now living in a Lady Chatterley society where sex is like tennis and it's just something you do without consequence.

    The fact is, we are now brandishing a level of irresponsibility and incompetence. Abortions will continue to happen, as they have done ever since the '67 act. Unless we change the law, it will continue to go up. This is concentration camp, as far as I'm concerned.
    To be honest, the idea that what happens to a child after birth is irrelevant just doesn't sit right with me - if you're going to bring a life into this world, at least make sure you are ready to give it the love and support it needs. To me your statement implies that giving birth is like a factory process - just bring them into the world, the rest doesn't matter.
    It's very irresponsible to just reject abortion without thinking about what that means for those involved as individuals, and for the rest of the world. Before pushing for abortion to be banned, the priority is to make sure that we as the world can deal with that - there are so many problems with overpopulation, poverty and lack of infrastructure in lots of countries that I have to wonder if we are really ready for a completely pro-life world. Even developed countries have issues that desperately need to be fixed - if you want a pro-life world,make sure that the world is worth being born into.

    Of course, I can see where you're coming from with the point that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, but I stress that not every abortion case is a result of a one-night stand. It's only logical and correct to take each case on its own. You mentioned a 'strict moral code' of Christianity, but I really don't believe that the same 'strict code' applies to all denominations of Christianity - not necessarily on abortion but on other parts of life.

    In addition, is there not the idea of taking out the log in your own eye first before worrying about the speck in others'? If more 'Christians' (and people in general) did as much as possible to make sure that the world is the best possible for future generations then sure, a world without abortion could agree with a lot more people. It's very easy to focus on the rules, obligations and ideals of religion, but we have to be careful that it doesn't become insensitive hypocrisy if we don't do anything to back up or support our words (for example providing more support for women during pregnancy/motherhood and more laws to protect women in society, since they are the ones going through labour).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i know so many people that say abortion should be illegal then they have kids instead of adopting, biggest hypocrites on earth
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum7)
    Thankfully in this country we no longer live in a time where everyone is expected to follow a faith and get married. People now have greater freedoms, including sexual freedoms. Humans have basic needs, urges, and instincts like other animals, including the need for sex. Managing these instincts is down to various individual, social and cultural factors. The use of protection is encouraged, but it can fail or the heat of the moment can get the better of people (biological urges can be difficult to overcome sometimes.)

    In a way it can be a form of birth control, albeit a later one. People should be able to manage when they have children if that's what they want. Science has progressed to a point where we can have control over that aspect of our lives more than ever before. Considering the many possibilities, we could artificially improve that human race by mending faulty genes and removing genetic disorders, maybe even increase brain efficiency. Heck, maybe we could even have two women or two men have a baby made from their own genes, it's not outside the realms of possibility. Sex doesn't necessarily have to occur any-more.

    With this level of control there wouldn't be any "unwanted" children and families would be planned and happier. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if everyone had some of their sperm/eggs "banked" at an early age and then got sterilised. No accidental pregnancies and you can plan when you want a child further down the the line
    Thanks for being so polite with your opinions and points - I don't agree with absolutely everything you've said (just my ideals), but I definitely appreciate you being so considerate with your response rather than turning it into a big round of bickering!

    It makes me a bit unhappy that people aren't really trying to challenge other or express their own views in a kind and respectful way.

    Of course people disagree, and that's perfectly fine - we all lead different lives with different experiences. It's incredibly unlikely that we can just change our views and ideals based on hearing about someone else's idea, but I'm sure the whole idea behind debate is to widen our perspectives, trying to understand why people don't feel the way we do or questioning ourselves and therefore improving.


    Again, thanks!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    One question for you all.

    Lets say A man and a woman had consensual sex. The condom broke and she is pregnant, The woman who is pregnant says she wants a abortion. The man Says he does not and would like a child and would care for him.
    Who has the right to choose?

    Same scenario but the woman wants the child and would care for him but the man says he does not want a child.
    Who has the right to choose?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    One question for you all.

    Lets say A man and a woman had consensual sex. The condom broke and she is pregnant, The woman who is pregnant says she wants a abortion. The man Says he does not and would like a child and would care for him.
    Who has the right to choose?

    Same scenario but the woman wants the child and would care for him but the man says he does not want a child.
    Who has the right to choose?
    The woman, in both cases. She has to endure the pregnancy, which involves risk to her health and life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kakerlake)
    The ability to have an abortion literally saves women's lives - whether because of the physical/emotional trauma pregnancy would cause, the potentional for abuse they could face at the hands of their parents or partner if they were against the pregnancy, or simply because of the dangers of backstreet abortions.
    You could not have said it any better!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keen_student)
    To be honest, the idea that what happens to a child after birth is irrelevant just doesn't sit right with me - if you're going to bring a life into this world, at least make sure you are ready to give it the love and support it needs. To me your statement implies that giving birth is like a factory process - just bring them into the world, the rest doesn't matter.
    It's very irresponsible to just reject abortion without thinking about what that means for those involved as individuals, and for the rest of the world. Before pushing for abortion to be banned, the priority is to make sure that we as the world can deal with that - there are so many problems with overpopulation, poverty and lack of infrastructure in lots of countries that I have to wonder if we are really ready for a completely pro-life world. Even developed countries have issues that desperately need to be fixed - if you want a pro-life world,make sure that the world is worth being born into.

    Of course, I can see where you're coming from with the point that marriage should be a lifelong commitment, but I stress that not every abortion case is a result of a one-night stand. It's only logical and correct to take each case on its own. You mentioned a 'strict moral code' of Christianity, but I really don't believe that the same 'strict code' applies to all denominations of Christianity - not necessarily on abortion but on other parts of life.

    In addition, is there not the idea of taking out the log in your own eye first before worrying about the speck in others'? If more 'Christians' (and people in general) did as much as possible to make sure that the world is the best possible for future generations then sure, a world without abortion could agree with a lot more people. It's very easy to focus on the rules, obligations and ideals of religion, but we have to be careful that it doesn't become insensitive hypocrisy if we don't do anything to back up or support our words (for example providing more support for women during pregnancy/motherhood and more laws to protect women in society, since they are the ones going through labour).
    Please, this is NOT a religious argument. The argument against abortion is heavily backed by science.

    "if you're going to bring a life into this world, at least make sure you are ready to give it the love and support it needs"
    - they have already chosen to bring a life into this world, right from conception. by your definition, you're not a human life until the minute you're born, which is a scary claim. i'm positive you don't believe that, correct me if i'm wrong.

    you cannot argue for the killing of a baby because "overpopulation, poverty and lack of infrastructure" are apparent in the world. you're not entitled to kill this baby, you never were.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The woman, in both cases. She has to endure the pregnancy, which involves risk to her health and life.
    not in all cases
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    not in all cases
    Do you know what "risk" means?

    I incur risk every time I cross the road. The fact that I have survived hundreds of thousands of such crossings does not mean that I incurred no risk in doing so, nor that I will escape unharmed the next time I venture out.

    I despair at the level of understanding shown here, sometimes, I really do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    Please, this is NOT a religious argument. The argument against abortion is heavily backed by science.

    "if you're going to bring a life into this world, at least make sure you are ready to give it the love and support it needs"
    - they have already chosen to bring a life into this world, right from conception. by your definition, you're not a human life until the minute you're born, which is a scary claim. i'm positive you don't believe that, correct me if i'm wrong.

    you cannot argue for the killing of a baby because "overpopulation, poverty and lack of infrastructure" are apparent in the world. you're not entitled to kill this baby, you never were.
    Firstly, I mentioned religion because I was responding to the whole Christianity and a strict moral code speech you made - not the scientific evidence you're talking about now.

    Sometimes conception isn't by choice - I seriously don't know how much more I can keep stressing that, and you aren't really responding to that certain point or providing a solution other than tossing the child up for adoption (the social care system is certainly not perfect).

    I can definitely agree to disagree with you on your strong pro-life views, even though I would never want to have an abortion myself, because you aren't showing me that you understand both sides of the argument despite the painful efforts I took to express both opinions or that you've considered several what-ifs.

    Killing a child as a fetus is just as bad as killing a child through neglecting the environment (not in a nature term only) they will grow up in - the only difference is they die a bit later. Additionally, forcing a woman to give birth when she didn't have a choice is the same as taking her life, in my eyes.

    All I'm hoping for is that you will at least respect my views instead of repeating the same "no right to kill" to satisfy what looks like a narrow view of right and wrong. I know that the prospect of ending a life is a horrible one, but simply claiming that abortion is wrong just isn't good enough - prove to the rest of us that banning abortion is the way to go through your actions. Encourage more people to adopt, adopt children yourself, and work hard to improve places which wouldn't be all that great for children to grow up in.
    If you already do that, great! Tell us about it and provide some hope instead of coming across as stubborn, angry and self-justified. I, for one, am sick of complaints without solutions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keen_student)
    Firstly, I mentioned religion because I was responding to the whole Christianity and a strict moral code speech you made - not the scientific evidence you're talking about now.

    Sometimes conception isn't by choice - I seriously don't know how much more I can keep stressing that, and you aren't really responding to that certain point or providing a solution other than tossing the child up for adoption (the social care system is certainly not perfect).

    I can definitely agree to disagree with you on your strong pro-life views, even though I would never want to have an abortion myself, because you aren't showing me that you understand both sides of the argument despite the painful efforts I took to express both opinions or that you've considered several what-ifs.

    Killing a child as a fetus is just as bad as killing a child through neglecting the environment (not in a nature term only) they will grow up in - the only difference is they die a bit later. Additionally, forcing a woman to give birth when she didn't have a choice is the same as taking her life, in my eyes.

    All I'm hoping for is that you will at least respect my views instead of repeating the same "no right to kill" to satisfy what looks like a narrow view of right and wrong. I know that the prospect of ending a life is a horrible one, but simply claiming that abortion is wrong just isn't good enough - prove to the rest of us that banning abortion is the way to go through your actions. Encourage more people to adopt, adopt children yourself, and work hard to improve places which wouldn't be all that great for children to grow up in.
    If you already do that, great! Tell us about it and provide some hope instead of coming across as stubborn, angry and self-justified. I, for one, am sick of complaints without solutions.
    i am aware that conception isn't always the result of choice, but that doesn't change my position. a life has started, and that's that.

    i'm trying my best to understand your position, i truly am. i find it hard to articulate my views through text, so if i'm coming across as stubborn, i apologise; that was never my intention.

    if they die by natural causes, then morality isn't involved. if we're consciously choosing to end a life based on the fear of extraneous variables, then morality is involved. that can be asserted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    i am aware that conception isn't always the result of choice, but that doesn't change my position. a life has started, and that's that.

    i'm trying my best to understand your position, i truly am. i find it hard to articulate my views through text, so if i'm coming across as stubborn, i apologise; that was never my intention.

    if they die by natural causes, then morality isn't involved. if we're consciously choosing to end a life based on the fear of extraneous variables, then morality is involved. that can be asserted.
    Thanks for understanding - I feel that usually death caused by problems which could be solved but are usually ignored shouldn't be considered natural causes, so I count that as killing. I would encourage you to try and show a little more love to those who may have felt they has no choice but to go through abortion (despite your personal opinion), since abortion in itself can be incredibly traumatising or cause them to be unable to give birth again. Not all women who go through abortion are devils who can kill a baby in cold blood (I'm not saying this is how you see them).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keen_student)
    First of all, I simply wanted to explain what both sides are thinking when arguing so bitterly over this matter. I don't think that it's that simple - usually people who believe that the child should live no matter their quality of life tend to complain when they choose to end that life (not that I support suicide - let's make it clear I don't).
    I'm not saying I support suicide either. I just feel it makes more sense for someone to make their own decision about whether or not to end their own life than for someone else to decide for them. Even if that person doesn't have a perfect, stable, financially well off family unit to grow up in, it's perfectly possible that they would end up being sufficiently satisfied with life so as not to want to die. I am sure that many people would choose being adopted, or raised in a state orphanage, or even being left to fend for themselves on the street, above death.

    Another point is, when the mother and child's life is at risk, is there really much of a choice between killing two people through stubborness or (crudely put) killing one? Again, I emphasise that it's never an easy decision to make, but we can only hope that we make the correct choices.
    I am certainly pro-abortion if continuation of the pregnancy poses a significant enough risk to the life of the mother. Killing someone else in order to save yourself is often acceptable, in my opinion.

    Controversially, I feel like any men (or women, but that's a bit of a grey area) who stubbornly believe that women should give birth no matter what (again, I'm talking about rape) need to experience giving birth for themselves before they can selfishly forget about the woman's own state of mind during the nine months of pregnancy and indeed during labour itself - imagine being forced to go through something like that, then facing judgement from uninvolved and unhelpful people for your desire to not go through childbirth.

    Again, rather than being stuck to one side it would be fairer to be willing to compromise on this issue - unless you have the capability yourself to care for every child who would otherwise have been aborted, you really can't say too much about this (I mean you generally). This is why, although I'm personally unlikely to go through with abortion, I can understand the situations of those who may decide to do it. That's all I want to make clear, and I hope that others will be able to understand more about both sides of the argument.
    I certainly understand this side of the argument, and would never want for us to simply "forget" about the well-being of a woman who has either been raped or otherwise become unintentionally pregnant. I admit I don't, and never will understand what that might be like. And I also agree that every support possible should be offered to such people. However, no matter how bad it might be for them, I don't think abortion can ever be the answer to this.

    In every other situation, we would value a person's life first, and a person's emotional well-being second. Even if, for example, someone were to brutally murder your whole family in front of you and mentally scar you for life as a result, we in the UK still would not attempt to rectify your mental state by administering the death penalty to that person. Even though that person is the ultimate scum of the earth, by law their life is still more valuable than your emotional sense of closure. And when we treat their life as so valuable, it seems impossible to rationalise not doing the same for an innocent, unborn child.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Do you know what "risk" means?

    I incur risk every time I cross the road. The fact that I have survived hundreds of thousands of such crossings does not mean that I incurred no risk in doing so, nor that I will escape unharmed the next time I venture out.

    I despair at the level of understanding shown here, sometimes, I really do.
    indeed, and when risk is measured low even doctors will say there is no risk of death, despite there still being some risk. Likewise, not all women will have a consistent presence of risk to their life. Thus, not in all cases (does a pregnant woman have risk to their health and life). Presuming life regards to the opposite of death rather a style or measurement of living.

    But this is not really for dispute.

    I agree a woman bears majority of risk and hardship and endearment during pregnancy.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Keen_student)
    I can understand where you're coming from, but I meant to say that there are two unpleasant situations, and it's up to us (not really 'us' as a whole) to try and decide what produces the best outcome for both mother and child. Often in these discussions we forget that it's not just about the woman, it's also about the child/fetus in her, and vice-versa. I'm pretty sure no child wants to find out they were never wanted or planned, and could a mother really take care of herself and her child knowing she has an unfair position (even before actually giving birth)?
    I totally get your question, but we can never be sure what we'd really choose unless we are in those situations ourselves and that's what makes this such a difficult and painful discussion.

    Thanks for being polite!
    Thank you for your super polite response ! Really refreshing to see that on TSR.
    Yes, I understand there are horrible psychological impacts on both the mother and the child, definitely. Do you think the solution could be that the mother could give the child up for adoption? So that the child could never know they were a product of rape?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    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...*
    It's not murder to abort a foetus as it is not yet a reasonable person in being.

    Socialism is for the people, and an unborn baby is not a person under the law.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The only real argument in favour of making it totally illegal that I can think of is that it would do wonders for the coat hanger industry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captivated)
    Thank you for your super polite response ! Really refreshing to see that on TSR.
    Yes, I understand there are horrible psychological impacts on both the mother and the child, definitely. Do you think the solution could be that the mother could give the child up for adoption? So that the child could never know they were a product of rape?
    Hi, thank you for replying !
    Thinking on it fresh, it could be a good solution, but on the other hand the child might grow up and (as they do) wonder about their roots/who their parents were and how they came to be adopted (that's where the trouble starts).
    This could happen once the child gets a clue that their parents aren't their biological ones. I've never been in the position before and I don't know anyone who has so I can't really say for sure what would happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    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.
    I can't be bothered to read this whole post but you're using the word 'murder' inappropriately


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    indeed, and when risk is measured low even doctors will say there is no risk of death, despite there still being some risk. Likewise, not all women will have a consistent presence of risk to their life. Thus, not in all cases (does a pregnant woman have risk to their health and life). Presuming life regards to the opposite of death rather a style or measurement of living.

    But this is not really for dispute.

    I agree a woman bears majority of risk and hardship and endearment during pregnancy.
    In some countries, the risk of maternal death is almost 16%, even in the twenty-first century. That isn't low, especially when you consider how may children they routinely have.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...elopment-goals
 
 
 
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.