The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

If contraception is used but pregnancy still occurs, is abortion morally permissible?

This is just a question I've been wondering about today. If one uses contraception during sex but the woman still becomes pregnant, does she and/or the person she conceived with still have a moral duty to birth and raise that child? Or is abortion morally justifiable in this situation because the pregnancy was not intended and the right precautions were taken?

Does an unborn foetus have a right to life regardless of whether the parents intended to have a child or not?
One should never bring a child into this world if they do not want it.
Original post by Reluire
This is just a question I've been wondering about today. If one uses contraception during sex but the woman still becomes pregnant, does she and/or the person she conceived with still have a moral duty to birth and raise that child? Or is abortion morally justifiable in this situation because the pregnancy was not intended and the right precautions were taken?

Does an unborn foetus have a right to life regardless of whether the parents intended to have a child or not?



I personally don't think the foetus has a right to life regardless of whether contraception was used. I do however think contraception should be used or prevent abortions being needed in the first place.

I appreciate everyone has very different (and often very emotional) views when it comes to abortions so fair enough if someone doesn't agree with me, But I personally see nothing morally wrong with abortion because I don't view a 2 week old embryo as life any more than I view a a sperm and egg that are literally about to impact as a life.
Whether pregnancy was intended or not, the people involved took a gamble. It's not as though we're not all aware that contraception isn't 100% effective.

If you gamble with Russian Roulette, knowing that there's a chance you could die, do you get a do-over if you happen to get that bullet? No, you don't, you die.
If you bet some money on a horse and it doesn't come up, do you get a second chance - will the bookie give you your cash back? Nope, you've lost your money.

A gamble on anything means an element of risk. Having sex, contraceptive or not, is exactly that, it's a gamble. Why then should the child have to die simply because the couple involved feel that they're entitled to a "do-over"?
No, I don't see it as "morally permissible". I agree with PMP above that they took the gamble.
Original post by Sabertooth
No, I don't see it as "morally permissible". I agree with PMP above that they took the gamble.


So what?
Pregnancy is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of sex, even if contraception is used. By taking part in an action that causes the fetus to come into being and become dependent of the mother for its life, the mother has essentially caused the situation the fetus is in. The fetus did not fertilize itself, nor did it come into being itself - it's only there, because of the actions taken by the mother.

I believe in the moral principle that you are obligated to rescue and protect someone from danger if you are the one who caused that danger in the first place. If I accidentally light a house on fire, because I gambled on a risk for personal pleasure, I have to protect and save the people in there even if it might harm me. As such, the mother has the moral obligation to bring the child to term.
Reply 7
Avatar for Everglow
Everglow
OP
19
Original post by PinkMobilePhone
Why then should the child have to die simply because the couple involved feel that they're entitled to a "do-over"?


I think this is exactly the issue in my mind. Why should the child, who obviously can't argue for its own rights, have to lose its life just because the pregnancy was unplanned or inconvenient?
Original post by PinkMobilePhone
Whether pregnancy was intended or not, the people involved took a gamble. It's not as though we're not all aware that contraception isn't 100% effective.

If you gamble with Russian Roulette, knowing that there's a chance you could die, do you get a do-over if you happen to get that bullet? No, you don't, you die.
If you bet some money on a horse and it doesn't come up, do you get a second chance - will the bookie give you your cash back? Nope, you've lost your money.

A gamble on anything means an element of risk. Having sex, contraceptive or not, is exactly that, it's a gamble. Why then should the child have to die simply because the couple involved feel that they're entitled to a "do-over"?


I completely agree. The idea that a foetus is not yet a child, and as such it's alright to terminate it is absolutely ridiculous. If the growth of the foetus is not impeded by natural influences, it will DEFINITELY become a human, and as such a sentient being. The definiteness of this negates any argument that states a foetus does not have a right to life.

This stands for even accidental pregnancy; if you do not want a child, have it adopted. At least give it the right to live.
Original post by Reluire
I think this is exactly the issue in my mind. Why should the child, who obviously can't argue for its own rights, have to lose its life just because the pregnancy was unplanned or inconvenient?


A ball of cells has no more right to life than a tumour.

Do you believe that all potential parents should be forced to have their child even if they do not want it?

Even if the child might get abused due to the fact it was not wanted in the first place?
I see abortion as permissible whether the pregnancy was intended or not. Forcing people to keep and raise a child which they may not want to or be prepared to is not going to have any lasting beenfits in most cases.
Original post by Captain Haddock
So what?


So they can't argue it's moral to kill the developing fetus just because their fun didn't turn out the way they wanted it to.
Original post by Sabertooth
So they can't argue it's moral to kill the developing fetus just because their fun didn't turn out the way they wanted it to.


Ok. It's just when people talk of 'gambling' and 'dealing with the consequences' with regard to abortion it sounds a lot more like they want the couple (especially the woman) to go through with the pregnancy as a form of punishment, rather than due to any concern for the rights of the foetus. To me, if killing a foetus is immoral then the 'gamble' aspect shouldn't come into it.
I'd say just abort the fooker at any age if it helps get rid of the woeful number of disgusting teen/single mothers in this country. Not much good being born to pastry faced wayne/waynetta, deffo just kill the ****er if they dont want it anyway.
If you think it is a being with legitimate interests then saying 'oh, but I really didn't want to have to kill it' is no justification.

Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I see abortion as permissible whether the pregnancy was intended or not. Forcing people to keep and raise a child which they may not want to or be prepared to is not going to have any lasting beenfits in most cases.


I tend to agree with this, although if, say, you had unprotected sex and took no precautions at all, before or after, intending from the start to fall back on abortion if you had to, I would condemn that, I think. Not because I think a foetus is a human or anything, but just because of the blasé attitude.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you