Abortion: Right or Wrong? And what limits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToxicMint

im only for abortions in such as rape situations. im very much in favor that the woman shouldn't have to have a constant reminder of what happened. however when a couple are just being lazy not using protection or they use the baby as a weapon then they should have to face the consequences of there actions and if they cannot cope with a baby should put it up for adoption but not destroy a life.

---

Putting a baby up for adoption often does ruin a life. Getting passed from family to family for years is not fun. And it's made even worse if your mother/family is difficult about it just for the sake of being difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jssy

It wasn't an abortion, the baby was just born early so her parents released the photo to show how well formed a baby is that is still aborted within this time limit.


I myself am against abortion, but think its ok in certain circumstances. I was shocked watching a documentary at a woman who had had 10 abortions and said she didn't use contraception. You can only have an abortion if 2 doctors agree and it either would put the mothers physical life in danger, affect her mental health or affect the quality of life for others. What constitutes as mental health? There is a wide range of things, so it is pretty easy to get an abortion. Obviously if a mother has been raped or the baby will be severely disabled then abortion is probably the best option. I just don't agree with using an abortion as a means to contraception, but I wouldn't judge anyone for their choices really, as its a choice women have, they'd be the one carrying the baby. I do think the abortion limit should be lowered.

Where I live the ward where abortions take place is on the same floor as the neo natal unit saving babies born at 24 weeks just down the corridor which makes me feel a bit weird that whilst babies are intentionally having their life ended, they're saving babies born early just down the corridor.

- - - Updated - - -



An abortion can take place up to 9 months pregnant if the woman is in genuine danger, so the limit being lowered to 20 weeks wouldn't be a bad thing, because doctors can always intervene if necessary

---

oh right

I think the limit should be lowered because of the advancement of technology and the care that can be provided to preterm babies. I support medical abortions in some cases but I haven't really given a thought to it as a whole it's a difficult subject.

I fully support abortion in pretty much every instance, but the upper limit needs to be lowered as it's astoundingly high in the UK compared to most of Europe (most of Europe is around the 12 weeks mark I think?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

Putting a baby up for adoption often does ruin a life. Getting passed from family to family for years is not fun. And it's made even worse if your mother/family is difficult about it just for the sake of being difficult.

---

id still prefer to have a life than to lose it. or Give a life than take it.

I think it's wrong because whether or not it is currently self-conscious and alive or whatever, in the future it would become that. It's still murder whether it's a life yet or not--because it will become that in the not so far away future.

However, I can understand some cases such as: the mother could die, the baby having something terribly wrong with it (e.g. both blindness and deafness or whatever), and so on. I can understand getting an abortion in those cases and similar ones.

I do think that the current amount of weeks you can still get an abortion at should certainly be lowered by a lot more, but either way it's just as wrong without good reason--whether or not it's yet to form into what you can actually call a life, IT WOULD become one eventually.

Now, you could reply to me saying that then it must be murder if you don't get pregnant every time that's possible? (Or at least someone strangely said that to me before when there was last a debate on this lmao?) Of course it isn't. You've now become pregnant and a living thing is actually going to exist within you and the world one day, and then you're just taking that away!

Anyway, in short: I do not agree with it unless it has a good reason, such as the mother could end up dying or the baby will just suffer with problems when it's born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewis

I think it's wrong because whether or not it is currently self-conscious and alive or whatever, in the future it would become that. It's still murder whether it's a life yet or not--because it will become that in the not so far away future.

However, I can understand some cases such as: the mother could die, the baby having something terribly wrong with it (e.g. both blindness and deafness or whatever), and so on. I can understand getting an abortion in those cases and similar ones.

I do think that the current amount of weeks you can still get an abortion at should certainly be lowered by a lot more, but either way it's just as wrong without good reason--whether or not it's yet to form into what you can actually call a life, IT WOULD become one eventually.

Now, you could reply to me saying that then it must be murder if you don't get pregnant every time that's possible? (Or at least someone strangely said that to me before when there was last a debate on this lmao?) Of course it isn't. You've now become pregnant and a living thing is actually going to exist within you and the world one day, and then you're just taking that away!

Anyway, in short: I do not agree with it unless it has a good reason, such as the mother could end up dying or the baby will just suffer with problems when it's born.

---

So... What about sperm and eggs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So... What about sperm and eggs?

---

I sort of mentioned something similar / have the same answer for that downwards in my post below the bolded. Fact is in this case it is becoming a someone and there's no way to stop that other than by abortion, whereas in that case it's not actually began to become a someone and you don't need to do anything such as an abortion to stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewis

I sort of mentioned something similar / have the same answer for that downwards in my post below the bolded. Fact is in this case it is becoming a someone and there's no way to stop that other than by abortion, whereas in that case it's not actually began to become a someone and you don't need to do anything such as an abortion to stop it.

---

I think the point that Kardan was making was that your argument could just as easily be applied to sperms and eggs. Sperms and eggs have the potential every month (for females) to be impregnated by a sperm and thus become a human life, in potentia. Now, personally, I do think that at the point that a foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb, it should be afforded the same rights as any other post-birth human. It does seem a bit of an inequality that there are now foetus' being terminated that would be capable of surviving birth, so the limit should, really, be lowered.

On a slightly branching topic, am I the only person who thinks that the father should get some legal choice in the matter? It seems slightly unfair that, theoretically, a woman could give birth to a child unwanted by the father and then hold him to paying CSA every month for eighteen (or is it sixteen?) years. Obviously this could lead to some issues, but at least then there'd be some form of fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Collegno

I think the point that Kardan was making was that your argument could just as easily be applied to sperms and eggs. Sperms and eggs have the potential every month (for females) to be impregnated by a sperm and thus become a human life, in potentia. Now, personally, I do think that at the point that a foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb, it should be afforded the same rights as any other post-birth human. It does seem a bit of an inequality that there are now foetus' being terminated that would be capable of surviving birth, so the limit should, really, be lowered.

On a slightly branching topic, am I the only person who thinks that the father should get some legal choice in the matter? It seems slightly unfair that, theoretically, a woman could give birth to a child unwanted by the father and then hold him to paying CSA every month for eighteen (or is it sixteen?) years. Obviously this could lead to some issues, but at least then there'd be some form of fairness.

---

Oh I completely agree with that, whether you're against abortion or not, surely people can't disagree that the father should get equal say? I'm not currently aware about the say the father gets currently though.

If one agrees and one disagrees, the baby should be kept. If both agree to whatever option, that option should be done.

And to those women who reply 'it's my body, my choice', well that's too bad, two people are responsible for it, not just you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Collegno

I think the point that Kardan was making was that your argument could just as easily be applied to sperms and eggs. Sperms and eggs have the potential every month (for females) to be impregnated by a sperm and thus become a human life, in potentia. Now, personally, I do think that at the point that a foetus is capable of independent life outside of the womb, it should be afforded the same rights as any other post-birth human. It does seem a bit of an inequality that there are now foetus' being terminated that would be capable of surviving birth, so the limit should, really, be lowered.

On a slightly branching topic, am I the only person who thinks that the father should get some legal choice in the matter? It seems slightly unfair that, theoretically, a woman could give birth to a child unwanted by the father and then hold him to paying CSA every month for eighteen (or is it sixteen?) years. Obviously this could lead to some issues, but at least then there'd be some form of fairness.

---

But then I think if he doesn't want it why isn't he wearing a condom? But then I guess if they were just using the pill the woman could easily stop taking the pill to get pregnant, but sex between a man and woman always carries the risk of pregnancy, so its something that could potentially happen and those are the consequences to deal with.