Should Abortion be made illegal?

Scroll to see replies

I love my mum enough that I'd rather I wasn't born than her to have had to go through a pregnancy and birth that she didn't want. I (and no-one else) has the intrinsic 'right to be born'. Once we are we have the right to life but before that you have no rights.

Reply 201

Xotol

My personal opinion - which is not based on any religious dogma whatsoever - is that life starts at conception and I therefore disagree with abortion in a lot of instances. I'm not sure what valid basis there is in trying to say that life begins anywhere else on the human development timeline (i.e. viability, sensitivity or whatever else) as it's all arbitrary. The formation of the zygote which contains the full set of chromosomes and signals the onset of human development seems to be the most sensible approach to me.

However, this is just my opinion so I do think abortion should be legal. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't find casual abortions or abortions where people don't think they're ready as morally abhorrent. I do, but it's not my position to tell anyone this as I don't know what they're going through.

Reply 202

username457532

Original post by Reluire

The irony is, you are appearing totally misandric. Sure, men can't carry children - but why do you assume that is an advantage? I'm gay and want to settle down with a man I love and have a family. I can't carry a child, no matter how much I might want to. You can't assume that men not being able to carry children is some 'privileged' advantage over women because it simply isn't necessarily.

I am not a strong supporter of abortion, but I accept that in some situations it may be practical and acceptable. With that said, when you hear about women aborting their children so they can go on Big Brother, it makes you feel sick to the stomach that people like that can get pregnant but men who may be the best parents in the world can't. It's biological fact that nobody can change, but I have to reaffirm that it is wrong of you to assume men are at some kind of advantage by not being able to carry children.

Oh poor men who never have to worry about being shamed by society for their sex lives or forced into carrying a foetus to term when they don't want it. If you want a child adopt one who needs a family. Don't go complaining about your privilege and forcing women to ruin their lives for something they don't want and forcing unwanted children to go through the care system and have their lives screwed up when they never asked to be born.

I bet most of these pro-life people would never consider actually adopting the children they think should be born into a world that doesn't want them.

Also, if I were to get pregnant and I couldn't have an abortion I'd kill myself rather than carry a foetus to term but I bet all these 'pro-lifers' would rather I was dead than me have a basic medical procedure to remove a parasite from my body because they don't actually give a **** about quality of life - just quantity.

Reply 203

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

Original post by keromedic

Thoughts on Thompson's argument? Anyone?

Somewhat illogical, no? Hardly an equivalent comparison.

Reply 204

Kvothe the Arcane

Original post by shadowdweller

Somewhat illogical, no? Hardly an equivalent comparison.

Well, many people say that abortion is okay as the foestus is not human.

The argument says that even if foetus were human, doesn't disprove that abortion is fine as having something depending on a person for life, even if it's human, does not give the host the responsibility of maintaining it.

Reply 205

Hariex

Original post by the mezzil

Why is killing inherently "wrong"?

Killing is not illegal, murder is. Distinct difference.

I was more working off of the assumption that killing another, in 99% of circumstances, is wrong. There is a distinction between whether a killing is justified and whether a killing is morally right.

Also most women feel relief after an abortion, not emotional turmoil.

Yeah, I accept that.

Reply 206

the mezzil

Original post by Hariex

If science is our source of knowledge, there are no objective moral truths. Thus, any moral statement is neither inherently wrong or inherently right. If you wish to be that pedantic about killing then you have to apply that to rape, genital mutilation, etc.

I was more working off of the assumption that killing another, in 99% of circumstances, is wrong. There is a distinction between whether a killing is justified and whether a killing is morally right.

Yeah, I accept that.

No, I accept that in terms of ethics, killing can be justifiable. (Such as in warfare, abortion or extreme self defence) The law also agrees with me. I do not agree with rape or genital mutilation, and neither does the law.

I would also say on the contrary, 80% of killing is lawful and morally right. Since relatively few murders occur, but on the otherhand, many willing combatants in warfare die/ get killed.

Science is the basis of fact, not ethics.

(edited 9 years ago)

YES!

Original post by Darien

I am not confusing anything and there is no advantage to be had in attempting to belittle me or what I say.

I quite clearly said that illegal abortions carry a greater chance of risk.

However, it is true that legal abortions also carry a chance of risk, and that the overall harm done to women is roughly the same in number even though in proportion far fewer women come to harm with 'proper' abortions.

No re-written history and it does not matter where facts are written, so long as they are factual.

The fact is if abortion was made illegal, I could set myself up as a back street abortionist despite the fact I have virtually no knowledge of medicine and still get patients. If I was to do it now, I would get no patients because its easier and infinity safer to get one on the NHS.

I think its stupid to equate the risk of having a serious medical procedure done by someone like me and a qualified doctor. There is no comparison and I think its criminally misleading and scare mongering to suggest otherwise.

Its a good job your attitude is so stupid and extreme few people will be taken in by it.

Reply 209

Chicken.M.

Original post by SmallTownGirl

Personally I'd rather have the choice to live my life and not be killed by someone else. That's just me though

Reply 210

Rosie786

Original post by ChickenMadness

Personally I'd rather have the choice to live my life and not be killed by someone else. That's just me though

Reply 211

Zorgotron

Original post by Maker

This is nonsense as a lot back alley abortions are conducted by trained physicians trying to earn extra money. This idea that back-alley abortions are literally back-alley abortion where a screwdriver is inserted into a vagina is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by pro-choicers.

Original post by Maker

I think its stupid to equate the risk of having a serious medical procedure done by someone like me and a qualified doctor. There is no comparison and I think its criminally misleading and scare mongering to suggest otherwise.

And calling abortion a medical procedure is every bit as misleading and dishonest. Calling it a medical procedure implies that pregnancy is some kind of disease or an injury that needs to be treated. Abortion doesn't ''cure'' pregnancy, nor is it conducted to heal the mother - it is conducted with the sole intention of terminating a life developing in the womb of the mother. Terminating the life involves causing harm, damaging and injuring the fetus - this is not the purpose of medicine. The purpose of medicine as a discipline, is to heal.

Abortion goes against everything the hippocratic oath stands for.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 212

Darien

Original post by Maker

I quite agree, and have never seen anyone equate the two, nor would I be silly enough to do so.

Original post by Maker

Its a good job your attitude is so stupid and extreme few people will be taken in by it.

It's a pity you are too stupid, arrogant and ignorant to understand what I have written (which does not reflect my attitude). Thankfully, most people are sensible enough to see your pathetic attempts to insult me as pure digression, indicating low intelligence and lack of manners.

Reply 213

username457532

Original post by ChickenMadness

Personally I'd rather have the choice to live my life and not be killed by someone else. That's just me though

So you'd rather your mother went through hell putting her life at risk and potentially ruining her future plans so you could live? How ****ing selfish.

Reply 214

Chicken.M.

Original post by SmallTownGirl

So you'd rather your mother went through hell putting her life at risk and potentially ruining her future plans so you could live? How ****ing selfish.

Well MY mother didn't put her life at risk and doesn't describe it as going through hell either. And her life isn't ruinned lmao.

What's more selfish? being pregnant for 9 months so your own child can live?

Or killing your own child that you can go around shagging more people.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 215

username457532

Original post by ChickenMadness

But this is exactly how a pregnant woman who doesn't want a child sees it. Because pregnancy can ruin lives and yes, most women don't die in childbirth or through complications with the pregnancy but it's still a risk that's not worth taking if there's no benefit to you.

Clearly you know nothing of pregnancy because it's not an easy nine months - there's physical and emotional consequences which cause a lot of suffering for the woman. Why should she go through that if she doesn't have to?

Who said anything about shagging more people? I was talking about lifestyle, career opportunities etc...

Reply 216

Rosie786

Original post by SmallTownGirl

But why wait till 24 weeks and then get abortion is beyond me. Why not wait three months more?

Reply 217

username457532

Original post by Rosie786

But why wait till 24 weeks and then get abortion is beyond me. Why not wait three months more?

Most abortions that late are when the baby would be born with severe disabilities or the live of the mother is in danger.

Reply 218

TheWorldEndsWithMe

Original post by Rosie786

But why wait till 24 weeks and then get abortion is beyond me. Why not wait three months more?

The vast, vast majority of abortions are carried out in the first trimester. And I'd imagine a reasonable amount of the ones after that time are for birth defects or people who just didn't realise they were pregnant until that point.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307650/Abortion_statistics__England_and_Wales.pdf

"91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation, 77% were at under 10
weeks"

So most people aren't 'waiting until 24 weeks'.

Reply 219

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by ChickenMadness

no abortions =/= no control over body.

You have the same amount of control you always had. Just don't have sex and don't kill anyone. Who's to say the child is your material possession to destroy anyway.

feminists always think it's some conspiracy to control them, when in fact it's just wanting to save lives. Sad they can't think about anyone other than themselves.

When you are arguing a women shouldn't be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, you are arguing that they shouldn't have the decision over what they do to their body.

Ah, so essentially you don't think women should be allowed to have sex except for having children. I assume you follow the same principles and abstain from doing anything yourself unless you want a child? (and by extension you don't use contraception or support it's use). Having an abortion is not killing anything, just like having a tumour removed is not killing anything (also, a foetus is not a child) - it's simply removing a ball of cells from your body. That it has the potential to grow into a person means very little - a pile of scrap metal has the potential to be made into anything, doesn't mean it shouldn't be scrapped.

There's no lives to be saved - it is simply telling a person that they don't get to decide what they do with their bodies.

(NB. there is no you in this situation - I'm a man).

Original post by Darien

That is a very narrow view.

Most women who abort have never been through a birth: in this, they are just like all men. Men can understand and empathise with someone going through labour just as a woman who has never gone through it can.

But they've been pregnant, which is what I said. The simple facts of the matter is that men have never been pregnant, as such they do not know what it is like to be pregnant. We can know what it's like to go through a pregnancy as a couple, but we don't experience the effects that being pregnant causes upon the body.

If a woman starts to carry a child, she can decide - completely on her own - whether to take the child to term or whether to have it killed. If she takes it to term, she commits the father to 18 years of financial servitude for a child he might never have wanted. If she has the child killed, she denies the father the opportunity of parenthood that he might crave.
Under current law, the decision is hers alone, yet it not only obviously affects the child's life but affects the father's life, too. A man is completely at the mercy of the woman's decision and is never given the chance to decide whether to be rid of the child if he wishes, or to become a father if he desires.

Well yes, but that doesn't mean that abortion should be made illegal. What that suggests is that the father should be given some say, however the mother is the one that has to carry the child to term, they should be the one who gets the final call.