Why abortion should be illegal

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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
    The mortality rate in developing countries isn't relevant to the abortion debate in the UK. The fact is in this country having a baby is safe, a few very unfortunate people will die from childbirth


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The mortality rate in developing countries isn't relevant to the abortion debate in the UK. The fact is in this country having a baby is safe, a few very unfortunate people will die from childbirth
    The OP is about abortion being illegal or legal. There is no territorial limit mentioned and we are discussing principles. In principle, no matter where she is in the world, carrying an unborn child is risky for the mother in terms of both death and of harmed health. The variation lies only in the degree of risk - but that risk is always there, and used to carry a very high chance of death, even in Europe. The person I was debating with tried to claim the risk is zero; it isn't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The OP is about abortion being illegal or legal. There is no territorial limit mentioned and we are discussing principles. In principle, no matter where she is in the world, carrying an unborn child is risky for the mother in terms of both death and of harmed health. The variation lies only in the degree of risk - but that risk is always there, and used to carry a very high chance of death, even in Europe. The person I was debating with tried to claim the risk is zero..."
    No I didn't.I just simply displayed disbelief that in all circunstances there will always be a risk to life. I.E. death.

    I do believe situations are different for each woman in which a doctor may say as i have heard..."there is no risk" based on how low the risk is

    Even in situations in which life or health are at risk we do not kill another person in order save 1.

    For example. Two soldiers on a battlefield are wounded. I do not see a situation occuring that would deem it moral to shoot the least likely to survive to save the easiest person to help.

    Thus, in cases of pregnancy .... we need to first attempt to save both mother and child. Second to act to not make direct attempt to kill the child or mother.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:


    This is not a baby. This is less developed than a fish. You would rather ruin someone's life, than bin the bunch of cells above. It has no consciousness, no awareness, no feelings. If you try and argue that it will be a human someday, then you must also be against masturbation, because all those sperm cells could have been too. You would rather a woman suffer through pregnancy and childbirth, and have to give birth to child she never wanted to suit your own twisted sense of morality. Let's say a 16 year old girl was raped, and had one of these forced inside her by her rapist. She'd have to give up on her education, change her life, and be scarred even more by the rape than you can possibly imagine. It angers me that you believe you're righteous for doing this. This thing above isn't a human, but the mother is, and you're choosing to destroy her life. Maybe you're the monster.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    This is not a baby. This is less developed than a fish. You would rather ruin someone's life, than bin the bunch of cells above. It has no consciousness, no awareness, no feelings. If you try and argue that it will be a human someday, then you must also be against masturbation, because all those sperm cells could have been too. You would rather a woman suffer through pregnancy and childbirth, and have to give birth to child she never wanted to suit your own twisted sense of morality. Let's say a 16 year old girl was raped, and had one of these forced inside her by her rapist. She'd have to give up on her education, change her life, and be scarred even more by the rape than you can possibly imagine. It angers me that you believe you're righteous for doing this. This thing above isn't a human, but the mother is, and you're choosing to destroy her life. Maybe you're the monster.
    1. the most prevalent means to argue against a group of people or degrade them is to identify:

    a. they don't act as they should/like us
    b. they are a lesser kind
    c. they do not look like us.

    I am sure there are more but c. seems to be more common among racists and pro-abortionists. With that said, how a person looks does not determine nor should it determine their importance, worth, or liberties. Agree?

    Should be clear we aught to consider humanity and not what a person looks like.

    2. Now depending on what you mean by "less developed than a fish" then I can respond with yes/no. Most people think of a swimming animal as a fish.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I would agree in comparison a fish that is seen swimming would be more developed than an embryo/fetus as you would be comparing an adult fish to a non-adult human. Any animal further along their natural life cycle will be more developed than an animal that is not.

    If we compared fish DNA to human DNA, however, and looked at how a species has developed...I would think human would be more developed - though this could be argued. In which case you would not be more developed than some fish as well.

    Either way it is looked at, development is a weak consideration.

    3. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF CELLS

    4. some months that require us to adapt so that another life survives will not automatically ruin a woman's life.

    5. Even adult humans become unconscious (me including) - in which you are suggesting for this very reason, these humans do not matter at all?

    Some drugs can alter a person sensory so that they do not "feel" - some of which are abused to get high. PCP, for example. Awareness is arguable though you are probably suggesting the sort that requires consciousness. I lean on point 2. You are just leaning on a characteristic or lack there of that is different then yours. There is only ignorance when comparing any thing in accordance to how it should not be.

    6. your masturbation point is a joke. No one argues, "it could be human." as SCIENCE has already identified what the human life cycle consists of - and that includes our state while within our own mother's womb!

    in comparison - all cells in your body, including sperm or egg, will remain those cells. Sperm cell doesn't change until it is assimilated into the egg in which that cell no longer exists. Whether in the earliest fetus stage or a single cell, the cells are multiplying and changing into an array of cells. We can research biology to further understand how and why the term human includes all of us while in the womb.

    7. Let's consider what a teen has to say about the situation of being pregnant due to a rape.
    a. http://madworldnews.com/raped-teen-abortion/
    “Adoption does NOT end your life, I’m proof,” Kathy added, then explained that she’s gone on to have two more beautiful daughters and have an otherwise fulfilling life. “Both my daughters are homeowners, did wonderful in school, and never missed curfews. So the pro-choice people just use that as an excuse.”


    b. Now 15, Ashley is a freshman in high school, adjusting to her life as a teenage mother and student. Baby Aiden is 20 months old, and although life has not been easy, Ashley is excelling in her classes and is a straight-A student.
    an-update-on-ashley-and-baby-aiden/
    I believe Ashley gave a report that abortion would have given the rapist exactly what the rapist wanted.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/17/p...ughter-a-gift/

    8. Now, no matter what - the only way to destroy a life is to kill it. To change the way a person lives is not having their life destroyed. There are plenty of ways to aid and assist the mother in her time of need. Those days will come and pass. I know this sounds cold, but I just view death to be colder.

    .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    No I didn't.I just simply displayed disbelief that in all circunstances there will always be a risk to life. I.E. death.
    Then you are unable to distinguish between NO risk and LOW risk. A pregnant woman ALWAYS carries a higher risk to her life and health than a non-pregnant woman, all other circumstances being equal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    To answer the title of the thread:

    Abortion in general should not be illegal.

    Firstly, because criminalising abortion would not get rid of abortion. It would show the country's official stance on the issue, true, but people would probably have more or less the same number of abortions as they did before. Only they would be unsafe, and desperate women would be delivering themselves into the unhygienic, money-grubbing hands of backstreet clinics.

    Secondly, because we've already seen what happens in countries like El Salvador where abortion is completely illegal. Women are forced to carry a foetus to term, even if it'll kill them. People in such places live in fear of being pregnant -- especially since, if you miscarry, you may face prosecution (since you could be accused of trying to abort the foetus) on top of the trauma of miscarriage.

    Thirdly, because a woman who is pregnant as the result of a rape should not be forced to carry her rapist's child. If she wants to (on account of her own principles) then she may, but if she didn't consensually agree to the action which carried the risk of being implanted with an unwanted foetus, then it is cruel to force her to have the baby. She may be a 15-year-old schoolgirl about to sit her GCSEs, frail or mentally disabled, have a serious inheritably condition, or be a single mother working two jobs to support the four children she already has.

    Fourthly, because the foetus may have a condition which will significantly shorten their lifespan, cause a great deal of grief and suffering or make the pregnancy unviable / kill the mother as well. In such cases it should be up to the discretion of the parents -- again, they can choose to keep the baby if they want.

    I'm entirely unsympathetic towards gender-specific abortion and when the patient concerned knowingly refused to use any form of birth control, or allow their partner to use it.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The OP is about abortion being illegal or legal. There is no territorial limit mentioned and we are discussing principles. In principle, no matter where she is in the world, carrying an unborn child is risky for the mother in terms of both death and of harmed health. The variation lies only in the degree of risk - but that risk is always there, and used to carry a very high chance of death, even in Europe. The person I was debating with tried to claim the risk is zero; it isn't.
    Well without being told otherwise I think you can assume that the OP is referring to the UK. Me going to work carries risk so should there be a law that says I don't have to go but my employer still has to pay me? Why are you talking about the past? Also completely irrelevant. The fact is having a baby in the UK is incredibly safe.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The fact is having a baby in the UK is incredibly safe.
    But not risk-free, which was my point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    No I didn't.I just simply displayed disbelief that in all circunstances there will always be a risk to life. I.E. death.

    I do believe situations are different for each woman in which a doctor may say as i have heard..."there is no risk" based on how low the risk is

    Even in situations in which life or health are at risk we do not kill another person in order save 1.

    For example. Two soldiers on a battlefield are wounded. I do not see a situation occuring that would deem it moral to shoot the least likely to survive to save the easiest person to help.

    Thus, in cases of pregnancy .... we need to first attempt to save both mother and child. Second to act to not make direct attempt to kill the child or mother.
    A foetus is not equivalent to a soldier. It is not a person. The comparison is completely unequal.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    But not risk-free, which was my point.
    Nothing is risk free but we look at things as not being risky if the chance of serious harm is very low which is the case with giving birth


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Nothing is risk free but we look at things as not being risky if the chance of serious harm is very low which is the case with giving birth


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Don't be silly. I'll try again:low risk is not no risk.

    It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.

    As for Britain being especially low risk, you are just plain wrong; Britain is outside the top twenty safe countries. Women in Britain are twice as likely as Polish women to die in pregnancy.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...countries.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Then you are unable to distinguish between NO risk and LOW risk. A pregnant woman ALWAYS carries a higher risk to her life and health than a non-pregnant woman, all other circumstances being equal.
    Okay. so did you skip the part about language used by some doctors? I never said low risk = no risk. but low risk can mean there is not a risk to life. which does not equate to no risk at all.


    .However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrafice to ensure another lives .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Okay. so did you skip the part about language used by some doctors? I never said low risk = no risk. but low risk can mean there is not a risk to life. which does not equate to no risk at all.
    There is always a risk to life consequent specifically on the pregnancy, however low. It is completely reckless, and wrong, to dismiss this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If a lady wants to get rid of her potential child, so be it. I don't think there should be any reason to do it, either. If she doesn't want to deal with the responsibilities, so be it. She may have gotten in to that position, i.e. not using contraception, or being rape, but the end result is no different; if she's pregnant and doesn't want it, she can do the evening flush on her sewer pipe.

    Not wanting to dedicate a lot of your life, go through the agony of childbirth, deal with the (presumably horrendous) experiences of carrying a baby from morning sickness or the stress of it, women should have the choice on that too, which is also a reason they should be allowed to ditch the extra luggage before the flight leaves the terminal.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Don't be silly. I'll try again:low risk is not no risk.

    It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.
    Got on stats on the number of women who become an anaemic after childbirth? Depression is notoriously difficult to diagnose but I'd be interested to see if you have any stats on that as well.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    As for Britain being especially low risk, you are just plain wrong; Britain is outside the top twenty safe countries. Women in Britain are twice as likely as Polish women to die in pregnancy.
    You're more likely to die getting out of bed than you are on an airplane but that doesn't mean you're likely to die getting out of bed. Something being twice as much/as likely as something else doesn't mean it's common. You have about a 0.0001 chance of dying from pregnancy, hardly a risk worth worrying about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    A foetus is not equivalent to a soldier. It is not a person. The comparison is completely unequal.
    What suggests a fetus is not a person?

    Otherwise, the situation is an analogy - not exact description of sameness. how would "equivalence" determine this analogy to be incorrect?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callicious)
    If a lady wants to get rid of her potential child, so be it. I don't think there should be any reason to do it, either. If she doesn't want to deal with the responsibilities, so be it. She may have gotten in to that position, i.e. not using contraception, or being rape, but the end result is no different; if she's pregnant and doesn't want it, she can do the evening flush on her sewer pipe.

    Not wanting to dedicate a lot of your life, go through the agony of childbirth, deal with the (presumably horrendous) experiences of carrying a baby from morning sickness or the stress of it, women should have the choice on that too, which is also a reason they should be allowed to ditch the extra luggage before the flight leaves the terminal.
    by definition, the pre-born are children. Nothing potential about that. rather disrespectful in manner you present your case.

    what is the difference between not wanting a 3 month old child vs. a pre-born child?

    It's a pity you aren't female and will not have the chance to experience the heightened risks to your health involved in being pregnant. For instance, pregnancy increases the risks of a healthy woman becoming anaemic or suffering from depression. If you think these aren't serious then I suggest you do a bit more reading.
    Despite the uncomfortable parts of pregnancy, there are benefits received from it. some circumstances are temporary. Plus, with the advances in medicine that we have seen and should continue to see, the discomforts and pains of pregnancy can be worked around.

    http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-...-of-pregnancy/

    http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/sig...-good-for-you/
    "Though fighting off waves of nausea for weeks on end can be downright debilitating, morning sickness is considered part and parcel of a healthy pregnancy. No one knows the exact reason behind the queasiness, but experts believe a rapid rise in the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG) could be to blame -- and that increase in hCG is needed for a pregnancy to progress. "

    Nausea is felt by different measures or intensity among women, and is a temporary incident that allows woman's body to maintain a pregnancy. I doubt this to be a moral or just reasoning for why another person must die.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    There is always a risk to life consequent specifically on the pregnancy, however low. It is completely reckless, and wrong, to dismiss this.
    .However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrifice to ensure another lives.

    Building on this, current doctors are held to an oath to prolonging life as required. An indirect loss of life may be acceptable if this is not direct killing and an outcome that may be out of control.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    by definition, the pre-born are children. Nothing potential about that. rather disrespectful in manner you present your case.

    what is the difference between not wanting a 3 month old child vs. a pre-born child?



    Despite the uncomfortable parts of pregnancy, there are benefits received from it. some circumstances are temporary. Plus, with the advances in medicine that we have seen and should continue to see, the discomforts and pains of pregnancy can be worked around.

    http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-...-of-pregnancy/

    http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/sig...-good-for-you/
    "Though fighting off waves of nausea for weeks on end can be downright debilitating, morning sickness is considered part and parcel of a healthy pregnancy. No one knows the exact reason behind the queasiness, but experts believe a rapid rise in the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG) could be to blame -- and that increase in hCG is needed for a pregnancy to progress. "

    Nausea is felt by different measures or intensity among women, and is a temporary incident that allows woman's body to maintain a pregnancy. I doubt this to be a moral or just reasoning for why another person must die.


    .However . even there being a risk. as with many medical situations . we do not need to make human sacrifice to ensure another lives.

    Building on this, current doctors are held to an oath to prolonging life as required. An indirect loss of life may be acceptable if this is not direct killing and an outcome that may be out of control.
    As long as it isn't born, then the woman shouldn't have to go through with it. That's just how I'm putting it. If it is born and she still doesn't want to go through with it, she still has the option of putting it up for adoption (I assume, age ranges vary and some orphanages wont exactly take a 1-second-year-old xD) but yeah, that is detrimental to the life the child would have had so that isn't too nice to do if you had the option to not have the child.

    I'm basically unpopular opinion city. You get my point though; the woman would still need to go through the task of raising the kid, having the kid, etc. I just don't see any difference.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    What suggests a fetus is not a person?

    Otherwise, the situation is an analogy - not exact description of sameness. how would "equivalence" determine this analogy to be incorrect?

    By that reasoning you can use an analogy to compare the life of a soldier with an ovum.


    I mean, it's just an analogy right? Yes they are not equivalent but that clearly has no effect on the premise of an argument by your reasoning. An ovum and a foetus is a potential for life, right? Same thing. You can't disagree with that given the logic you've just provided regarding analogies.
 
 
 
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.