Abortion becoming illegal

Again, yes, yes the rape argument.



Let me be clear - if a woman was raped, then I believe abortion is justifiable. HOWEVER, being a logical person I don't use rape as my sole reasoning for why ALL WOMEN should get abortions.


Rape is not common. There were over 180,000 abortions in a year alone in this country. There were nowhere near that amount of rape cases. As a logical person think - why use the extreme scenarios to explain the average circumstance?

+1 to abortions, even if they have to tear it out limb from limb.

Maybe not limb from limb. That's a bit dark.

Maybe with a vacuum?

(I'm not trying to sound gross, it's just apparently how it's done! THEY VACUUM IT OUT?! I mean, taking a pill and all is fine, but vacuuming?)

More to the point, a fetus cannot feel, it cannot think, it's brain is completely undeveloped, yes it is living but it is not a complete organism, you use plants as a model for argument, the difference is that thats plants don't give birth, nor do they have brain's, you are using a completely different kettle of fish to make a point.

it's murder, anyone participating in it, (mother, doctor, organisations willingly funding it etc.) deserve to be put to death.

Should not be illegal. Imagine people finding “other ways” to get it done, which will probs put their own lives at risk.

Imagine if people, consenting adults with full capacity, took responsibility for their actions.

And how exactly are they meant to consult someone if they get, let’s say, raped?

To take the extreme sample of a population, make a conclusion from that, and extrapolate the conclusion from the extreme and apply it to the majority is, ironically, extremely illogical. I'm not dismissing rape. I'm dismissing rape as a reason why absolutely ANY WOMEN should freely get an abortion.

Because 1 woman was raped, you are happy giving another 1000 free abortions?

That's extreme and contradictory - you don't agree with murder, but you will agree to the murder of murderers? How about we just stop murdering.

Let me be clear - if a woman was raped, then I believe abortion is justifiable.

Every year there tens of thousands of non-emergancy (not from rape or due to major health concerns) abortions

The dehumanization of embryos makes reckless people comfortable about not accepting responsibility.

No but for a human body.. it cannot live without a heart.. or some replacement of the heart.. therefore before the heart starts working (as you cannot give a human foetus a pacemaker or artificial heart)... they are not alive because how can something be alive if it does not obtain one major factor in a human life.. for something.. whether that be an artificial heart or not ... to pump blood around the body.. ??

I don't get how you pro-life people who's whole reason is "it's a human life you're killing, that's wrong", who then go on to say "ah yeah it's okay to murder babies in these special circumstances". Like... what?

If you're saying there's circumstances where it's okay to do the whole murder thing, then why not for other circumstances? Thought process: "murder bad, but rape bad, aagh can't decide, fak it you can murder the baby this one time".



Embryos aren't human. We can create embryos in petri dishes. Does that make them human? Does that mean we have to find a woman somehow and implant it or else you're murdering it? No. It's a bunch of cells and nothing more.



Okay you're dumb and don't know what being alive is. A heartbeat is a stupid measure of whether a human is alive. You survive for hours without a heartbeat. There are many far more fundamental signatures of life other than a heartbeat.

I'm not pro-choice or pro-life. I like to think of myself as anti-abortion.


I believe abortions should be legal, but the process of getting one should be thorough. What I mean is, abortions shouldn't be handed out like sweets on Halloween when couples are reckless in bed and make a mistake. The dehumanization of embryos makes reckless people comfortable about not accepting responsibility.


In my ideal world, if someone wanted an abortion they would have to go through a screening process and apply. One section would involve a judging panel on the reasons why a women would wish for an abortion.

A lack of self control is the mark of an uncivilised nation.

1.) Read my first post on this thread, I don't identify as a pro-lifer. I just don't like abortions being given out so freely. I'll quote what I said already below.

2.) There are NEVER circumstances where it's okay to murder - aborting a rape baby is just the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying "fak it" I'm saying "Well damn, both outcomes are horrible. I hate it, but I suppose we have to go with the objectively less horrible one - the one the raped mother picks".

3.) What difference is there between an embryo and a human to you?

Again, yes, yes the rape argument.



Let me be clear - if a woman was raped, then I believe abortion is justifiable. HOWEVER, being a logical person I don't use rape as my sole reasoning for why ALL WOMEN should get abortions.


Rape is not common. There were over 180,000 abortions in a year alone in this country. There were nowhere near that amount of rape cases. As a logical person think - why use the extreme scenarios to explain the average circumstance?

And there are 510,000 reported sexual assault cases against women alone in this country this year, with 85,000 of those being rape, that's 16 percent of all sexual assaults being rape, tell me again that rape is not common? About 7.98% victims of rape have conception, that leaves 10,968 women who got pregnant based on the stats. That means that assuming every womam has an abortion after, 16% of abortions are performed on rape victims. Let's assume 30% don't have an abortion, that's still 10% of abortions being performed on rape victims.

Tell me again how rare it is.

10,968 is not the majority of 180,000. Why are you extrapolating the extreme situation and using it as a rule to justify the other 169,032 people? This is not how you make conclusions from statistics - look at the mean, the average; not the extremes.

I wake up one morning and stub my toe on my chair - I then campaign to remove all chairs in the UK because 1/10 people stub their toe every morning like me. I wonder how many would back me.

In regards to the first paragraph I've quoted - are you saying you are okay for me to kill another human if they cannot produce their own heartbeat (without artificial help) because, in your subjective eyes, a heartbeat is "one major factor" for "a human life"?

So following your reasoning, it's not morally wrong for me to kill a child with a pacemaker because he lacks one of the fundamental factors a human life requires. Cool.








In regards to the second quotation; good, good. A bit of backtracking. First, it was a heartbeat, now it's the potential value that dictates a life. Now we are getting somewhere. How do you measure value? Another subjective term here, I'm going to need more clarification. Left to its own natural processes, an embryo will develop into human life - what is greater potential than that?