Why do so many people think that abortion is acceptable?

Post Reply New Topic

Killing someone painlessly is still killing. The risk of death for a healthy of-age woman is minimal in the first world. I'm not a pacifist, there is a time to kill, but nothing you have listed justifies killing, especially not a child.

I don't think you know a whole lot about what all pregnancy entails, that is 9 months of life...and it effects hormones, mental state and has its own health risks even in a healthy woman. Sure easy to say 'its temporary' but likely much harder to actually deal with pregnancy. I know I personally could not handle it mentally and I have doubts about my physical ability to....also its my body no ones going to force me to endure a pregnancy I don't want without a major fight.

I don't care if you think its immoral or not, your entitled to your opinion...but your not entitled to other peoples bodies or uterus, to dictate what they do with it. Also sure giving up a child of incest or rape is possible, and so is abortion so said women does not have to endure the risks of pregnancy after that trauma and whatever physical injuries the rape may have caused. You seriously suggest that a women be forced to grow that embryo into a baby against their will?

And then what about if a woman gets pregnant and it is found she has some health condition or too bad of general health to safely endure pregnancy?

Death isn't the only risk....also not everyone agrees with you that a child and an embryo/fetus that may or may not even mature into a baby are the same thing. I don't think anyone is saying to round up children and kill them.

it's not a someone or a child.

All good points, but the moral question is how much suffering and of what kind makes it acceptable to kill a child? In my hypothetical example the victim is all but permanently crippled and needs a year of physical therapy to recover. While I have not been pregnant myself it's easy to see that the pregnancy is easier to endure. Still neither scenario would justify the killing.


Me personally perhaps not, but as a society we can do what we like with laws. We still have laws on paper that say ingesting drugs is illegal, as is prostitution and exorbitant public nudity. Those laws are telling you what you can and can't do with your body, feebly enforced though they may be. Whatever your views on these things, the sacred cow of bodily autonomy is only held up where people need it to suit their purposes. Society can and will dictate to you where it deems it necessary.


I see it as collateral damage, damage that can be fixed through an extremely questionable act. See my hypothetical example.



I've covered this previously, where the risks are abnormal due to age or medical conditions, the choice to abort is justified.

@cathylynn & sweetleaf both

Whatever the embryo or fetus is or is not (nice dehumanising words). If you do not interfere with the pregnancy violently through abortion and there are no extenuating circumstances, that fetus or embryo will be born and have a future outside the womb of one sort or another. I said in a previous thread killing anyone painlessly is wrong, because you are depriving that person of future experience, good or bad. What does abortion do to the "embryo" if not that.

As the mother has the right to decide whether the being growing inside her has a future or not, so does the hypothetical maniac standing over you while you sleep, ready to extinguish you painlessly.

A supplementary, I am happy to discuss these extreme examples with people. But my biggest issue with abortion is that it has become a backstop for contraception, most babies are aborted for convenience, out of laziness and increasingly for minor defects and gender. If the law were changed in such a way that abortion was made legal only for rape, incest, severe deformity and medical reasons, I would be ecstatically happy with such a compromise, despite finding some of those instances morally questionable at best.

in every pack of birth control pills, it says the following: the birth control method with the least health risks is a barrier method backed up by abortion. abortion is good birth control.

fetus and embryo aren't "dehumanizing". these are accurate medical terms for the stage of development such as adolescent.

You are speaking to someone who was raped and had a pregnancy scare from it, and you have no sensitivity to that whatsoever. You are a terrible person and I hope you feel bad about this conversation. Your opinion on what I should allow to happen to my body (gestate the fetus of a rapist, allow that parasite to feed off my body for 9 months and then come exploding out of me) after being raped and having the control over my body already taken away from me in not being able to choose to not have his sperm inside me in the first place--you are an inhuman monster if you can contemplate that and still tell me I should have to carry that inside me. Seriously, there is something wrong with you and you should feel bad about yourself. Your "opinion" is f*****g revolting and stomach churning. You are a piece of garbage, feel that deeply about yourself and live in that shame.

I don't even care if I get banned for this. It was worth it to tell you what I really think of you.

My position is fairly simple: that life begins at conception, regardless of the circumstances. If you take that position abortion is good birth control the way that [insert favourite historical massacre] was good population control.



Being "accurate medical terms" is part of what makes them dehumanising. They evoke a clinical mindset, not the emotional one necessary to see a being as human, instead of a statistic or non-human entity.

@Wilburforce Rape victims have my sympathy, but that sympathy does not extend to excusing the killing of another human. I am sad my opinions seem to be having such a detrimental effect on your mental health. But that is not my problem, it is yours, if this thread is causing you such anguish then please for your own sake, stop reading it. Debate is good, all opinions should be heard and discussed, if for no other reason than to understand what those among us think. As such debate must always continue in one form or another regardless of what emotion is evoked - if we did stop debate for such reasons there would be no debate at all on anything whatsoever.

Good old fashions orphanges??Like as in Oliver Twist?Look up RAD.
http://www.livescience.com/21778-early- ... rains.html
To bad you are not a male sea horse.
Pregnancy may be a temporary state of affairs but it's not without risk.Especially to the young and those with drug habits.Their health is already compromised,then also figure in the tax payer expense.Who pays for the emergency c - section,the cost of a premature drug addicted child,the cost to warehouse those poor children that no one wants to adopt.
I don't like the idea of late term abortion,only if the mothers health was severely compromised.
I suggest that the men that are bothered by abortion get working on inventing an artificial womb.Then you can raise the child and care for it yourself.

Your position, then, is far too simple. You are equating a single cell with a person.

I don't agree with killing children, I simply don't think there should be a law against aborting tissue/cell matter that could potentially develop into a baby. I mean before the thing even starts to loosely resemble a baby it looks like the grossest parasitic worm you've ever seen....that to you is a 'child'?

And pregnancy may be easier to endure than getting crippled for life....but that doesn't make it 'easy' to endure or get rid of any of the risks that accompany it(risks not every women is willing to take). Also it costs money(check ups, any healthcare treatment and of course going to the hospital to give birth expensive stuff). It also prevents you doing a lot of physical activity not every women is in a position to just drop everything and undergo that process.

Luckily society deems you don't have to be forced to endure pregnancy, if you don't desire to and provides options to terminate pregnancy. Unless of course the religious right takes over...but plenty of people to fight and oppose that.

Also you complain about dehumanizing language and you discuss women as if we're mere vessels for babies to come through and should not be regarded in the least when it comes to pregnancy unless too young or having a health condition. As if the general risks are just irrelevant collateral damage and nothing serious to consider when determining if you should go through with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

Not to mention pregnancy requires lifestyle changes not everyone can or is willing to make....are you really going to encourage that society force say a meth addicted, alcoholic who doesn't mean to change to have a baby? Or should the state spend money to involuntarily commit them to the hospital to be strapped down to a bed and cared for to make sure they don't screw up the development process or risk a miscarriage from the drug abuse?


And finally what of the morning after pill or early term abortions before the embryo even becomes a fetus...is that still without a doubt killing a 'child'?

Ah yes here comes the ban plan B brigade, I just hope the every sperm is sacred brigade doesn't show up.

So in other words, you don't want to impose your will on all women. Just most of them. The thought of imposing your will on people you will never meet makes you "ecstatic."

What a strange, strange world you live in.


And you base this position on... what, exactly?


A ten week old embryo can't feel emotions, so don't try to guilt trip us with emotionally loaded terms like "child" or "baby." You might love an embryo but they don't love you back.

Religious people think of life as having 'soul' - they would argue you that this parasitic worm has a human soul, therefore it is sin to kill it.