Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Harv]

Note: This issue is sensitive yet I feel that there's no reason it shouldn't be discussed unless anyone feels directly uncomfortable with it. Of course, it's up to the team to decide but if everyone behaves according to forum guidelines, I can't see a problem in healthy debating so I'm gonna make the thread in the hope that it doesn't dissolve into anything negative anyway. Also, I'm not going to add a poll, as I feel sometimes it can be better to explain your opinions rather than just state them.​

---

Ok, so I'm just wondering what the members of TowersStreet feel on the subject of 'abortion'. In order to prevent any confusion from the beginning, here's the dictionary definition:

Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.


Do you agree that abortion is a process that should be available to everyone in the UK? The current laws state that abortions are allowed for women up until 24 weeks, but for me, this makes little sense. Surely, the point where life begins is either fertilization/conception or the actual birth? Why does the act become a step below murder after 24 weeks, except in certain circumstances?

It's an issue that is prominent in today's society and it's an issue that confuses me, so I just wanted to hear what everyone had to say about it.

 

[Poisson]

Right and wrong subject to the reasons surrounding it.

If it is for reasons such as can't afford to support the child or unable to care for it, then it is correct. But if there was an abortion as it was a baby girl and not a boy then it is 100% wrong.

 

[D4n]

.

 

[BigT]

From the point of fertilisation I'd class it as murder unless there is a very good reason ie badly deformed so no quality of life etc. but even then I'm not comfortable with it.

Every human life deserves a chance in my opinion.

 

[Sam]

Abortion is a human right that should be available to everyone in the UK. The recent tragic event in Ireland shows the consequence of a backwards policy on abortion.

People who are anti-abortion are often called 'pro-life' but that is wrong. They're not pro-life, they're just anti-woman. We should call out anti-abortion activists for what they really are - they just hate women and hate the equalising impact that feminism has had on society.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

Those without a uterus will never carry a foetus, so it's unfair to say that those that do shouldn't have an abortion. People have them for a multitude of reasons - rape, health conditions, family planning, financial situations and so on. Something that really needs to be stressed, however, is that abortions are not an easy option at all. I've known a few friends who have had them, and they certainly didn't find it pleasant. But they knew they were doing the right thing.

I want to say more about this, and will write a more coherent post when my brain is a bit more active. But I'm 100% pro-choice - if you have a uterus, it's your body so do with it as you damn well please.

Abortion is a human right that should be available to everyone in the UK. The recent tragic event in Ireland shows the consequence of a backwards policy on abortion.

People who are anti-abortion are often called 'pro-life' but that is wrong. They're not pro-life, they're just anti-woman. We should call out anti-abortion activists for what they really are - they just hate women and hate the equalising impact that feminism has had on society.

Amen.

In a way though it confuses me that so many women allow themselves to get into a position whereby they're pregnant with an unwanted child, the emphasis should be on making sure that these people don't get pregnant in the first place, meaning that abortions are only required in extreme cases (such as rape) in which I think a vast majority would agree that an abortion is acceptable.

You speak as though birth control is the sole responsibility of women, when that is not the case. What about condoms, for a start?

From personal experience, I find it unfair that you say women 'allow themselves to get into a position whereby they're pregnant with an unwanted child'. A few months ago, a friend of mine was convinced by her boyfriend to go off the pill, with him citing the higher probability of blood clots (which isn't that particularly high) as the reason for her to stop taking it. It scared her enough that she listened to him. However, he also refused to wear condoms (there's something about men and not liking condoms that ill never understand...), and as a result she got pregnant. She knew it wasn't the right time to have a baby, so she decided to go ahead with an abortion. Her boyfriend protested, but eventually saw sense.

Young people are gonna have sex. Sex feels great - ask anyone whose had it - and nobody's gonna stop having it. But accidents do happen on occasion, for a multitude of reasons, so we should certainly take advantage of the family planning we are lucky enough to have in this country.

 

[Meat Pie]

I know it's not strictly relevant, but I do find it amazingly ironic that it's the Right Wing which are generally against abortion because they don't give a damn about you from the moment after your birth. Are you poor? Well then it's your fault. Are you sick? Pay for your own healthcare. Are you unemployed? Well starve on the streets. Funny how so many 'pro-lifers' couldn't care less about your quality of life.

I find it really bizarre that people have to argue over the right to abort what is essentially a collection of cells manifesting itself into a material that has yet to become concious, aware or able to suffer. Yes it's 'alive' but only in the way that a piece of skin can be kept alive under laboratory conditions.

The point in a pregnancy where medical science tells us that a foetus moves away from being this and towards something that can suffer, that is the point that limitations on abortion need to be employed, with perhaps some serious exceptions like a threat to the mother's health etc...

 

[Bear]

This isn't a right or wrong, black or white issue. There are lots of different circumstances where the need to terminate a pregnancy could arise, some of which some people consider to be more viable than others. I find that the more extreme the situation, the more obvious the answer; if the mother's life was in immediate danger with the pregnancy, then it's a relatively straight-forward "yes". If the pregnancy occurred due to some form of sexual abuse, but the mother is physically perfectly capable of carrying the child to term, then the boundary between yes and no starts to become fuzzy. If the mother was irresponsible with her right to engage in consensual sex, then the boundary becomes fuzzier still; at what point can you judge what is a woman's right, and what is irresponsible behaviour that presents abuse to the NHS? If a woman repeatedly behaves promiscuously and doesn't use protection, would stopping their access to family planning services be a suitable punishment or a breech of human rights? It hurts my brain.

The problems tend to appear (unfortunately) when people's emotions are brought into the equation. Making decisions to avoid physical danger to our beings is significantly easier than making decisions to avoid physical danger AND produce the best possible emotional outcome. For example, a mother has an ectopic pregnancy that is not discovered until 5 months in, which will pose a great danger to her life if left any longer. From a physical standpoint, the choice is an easy one; for the mother to live, the much smaller, much less stable life needs to be lost. However, from an emotional point of view the mother will be attached to the child which she'd consider to be a person in its own right, and will take a greater role in the decision that is made.

Abortion is an emotive subject, which in itself causes problems in putting together a set of guidelines that pleases everyone.

 

[Martin]

I know it's not strictly relevant, but I do find it amazingly ironic that it's the Right Wing which are generally against abortion because they don't give a damn about you from the moment after your birth. Are you poor? Well then it's your fault. Are you sick? Pay for your own healthcare. Are you unemployed? Well starve on the streets. Funny how so many 'pro-lifers' couldn't care less about your quality of life.

I find it really bizarre that people have to argue over the right to abort what is essentially a collection of cells manifesting itself into a material that has yet to become a concious, aware or able to suffer. Yes it's 'alive' but only in the way that a piece of skin can be kept alive under laboratory conditions.

The point in a pregnancy where medical science tells us that a foetus moves away from being this and towards something that can suffer, that is the point that limitations on abortion need to be employed, with perhaps some serious exceptions like a threat to the mother's health etc...

George Carlin put it best when he said the right are pro-life while you're in the uterus, but once you're born they're the opposite, they can't wait to put you in the military and send you to die. It's a vile hypocracy.

It's the woman's uterus and it is up to her what grows in it. The health of the mother takes precedence over the rights of the foetus.

What good would banning abortion do anyway? None. Look at what happened recently in Ireland. All it will do is increase the number of unsafe 'backstreet' abortions.

Abortion isn't the nicest thing in the world, but do you know what's worse? Endangering the lives of women by not allowing abortions.

 

[Bear]

From the point of fertilisation I'd class it as murder unless there is a very good reason ie badly deformed so no quality of life etc. but even then I'm not comfortable with it.

Every human life deserves a chance in my opinion.

What if you got sun burnt by accident and developed skin cancer; not lethal, enough to land you a number of physical and psychological scars, and someone turned round to you and said they'd consider it murder if you had the cancerous cells removed?

 

[Simon]

In a way though it confuses me that so many women allow themselves to get into a position whereby they're pregnant with an unwanted child[...]

Because pregnancy has nothing to do with men and their actions, right?

Someone I know was told they could never get pregnant. 3 years down the line, hey presto! Not all women can get on with the pill. Sometimes condoms break. Sometimes people don't have the knowledge or education to make sensible choices. Sometimes carrying the child to term will be dangerous. Sometimes people are duplicitous. Sometimes this, sometimes that.

Ultimately, though, pregnancy is a strain on a woman's body, and having a child carries some of the heaviest responsibilities that humans can take on themselves. It is right that people should be given the choice whether they want to put their body through the travails of pregnancy.

The right-wing tabloids and pro-lifers would have you believe that women choose to have abortions with the same laxity that they choose what socks to wear or what to have for breakfast, when in the vast majority of cases, it is either borne out of emotionally very distressing circumstances, or else one of the most difficult decisions that anyone can take.

 

[Rowe]

I believe abortion should be available everywhere in the world because it is the woman's right to decide on the fate of the child as she is the carrier, nobody else should make the decision for her at all, and she is the one who weighs the pros and cons: It is a simple case of human rights and body rights. Illegal backstreet abortions shouldn't even exist!

And to say 'a woman shouldn't have had sex in the first place' is disrespectful because the contraceptive might not have worked/there was never any contraceptive (this is never solely down the woman, the man holds responsibility too over his actions) or the woman was raped, the baby itself may have health issues for life even when the mother originally wanted it. Multiple cases of abortion are due to unplanned, unwanted pregnancies but we can't forget about the health risks that a baby may inherit or gain out of their own growth in the womb.

I won't even mention the limited choices women get when bearing children comes into the equation, particularly when forced to conceive the child against their own will!

Abortion should never be seen as murder and no woman should be demonised for her actions.

Bear, Ashlee, Blaze and Sam have all hit the nail on the head here, I hope the rest of my gender share their views too in the topic

 

[Harv]

From the point of fertilisation I'd class it as murder unless there is a very good reason ie badly deformed so no quality of life etc. but even then I'm not comfortable with it.

Every human life deserves a chance in my opinion.

What if you got sun burnt by accident and developed skin cancer; not lethal, enough to land you a number of physical and psychological scars, and someone turned round to you and said they'd consider it murder if you had the cancerous cells removed?

Ah, but that is your choice. You are responsible for the baby's life too and that's why I find abortion tricky.

I'm not even interjecting an opinion, I'm just pointing an idea out.

 

[Adam]

I'm 100% pro abortion, no doubt about it.

 

[Meat Pie]

From the point of fertilisation I'd class it as murder unless there is a very good reason ie badly deformed so no quality of life etc. but even then I'm not comfortable with it.

Every human life deserves a chance in my opinion.

What if you got sun burnt by accident and developed skin cancer; not lethal, enough to land you a number of physical and psychological scars, and someone turned round to you and said they'd consider it murder if you had the cancerous cells removed?

Ah, but that is your choice. You are responsible for the baby's life too and that's why I find abortion tricky.

I'm not even interjecting an opinion, I'm just pointing an idea out.

But until the point in the pregnancy where we know that it is an aware, concious being, it's not really 'life'. It's a soupy preparation for life, but it's not life. As far as I can see it's like cutting your hair or as mentioned, having cancerous cells removed.

Until the point that it is a concious being capable of suffering, there's really no question that it should be the woman's choice as it is she who has to cope with the carrying and having the baby.

 

[TheMan]

I believe abortion should be available everywhere in the world because it is the woman's right to decide on the fate of the child as she is the carrier, nobody else should make the decision for her at all, and she is the one who weighs the pros and cons.

I don't want to misunderstand your post Rowe on such a sensitive subject. I agree with everything I deleted out, however this concerns me.

If two people conceive a child, it in no way should be the sole choice of one member of that party, in a consensual circumstance of course.

That quote is ambiguous above, in so much as, in reference to those of a so called higher "moral" standard making decisions on a massive scale I agree with what you say - but there are also going to be many cases of women whom abort regardless of a mans desires when a consensual act has taken place.

At that point, you move beyond freedom of choice and responsibility, and into callousness.

 

[Bear]

From the point of fertilisation I'd class it as murder unless there is a very good reason ie badly deformed so no quality of life etc. but even then I'm not comfortable with it.

Every human life deserves a chance in my opinion.

What if you got sun burnt by accident and developed skin cancer; not lethal, enough to land you a number of physical and psychological scars, and someone turned round to you and said they'd consider it murder if you had the cancerous cells removed?

Ah, but that is your choice. You are responsible for the baby's life too and that's why I find abortion tricky.

I'm not even interjecting an opinion, I'm just pointing an idea out.

Ok then, for the sake of argument, you were stuck outside for reasons absolutely beyond your control, I'm talking an absolute fluke.

My point is that things can happen outside the mother's control where a termination would be necessary, and like Simon said it is just about the hardest and most traumatic decision that a woman (men too) can be forced to make. I think those people need support, not made to seem evil and selfish.

 

[Harv]

^ I guess so, Meat Pie.

But stating that it's just a preparation for life; when does life begin then? There has to be a point where life begins. This is what confuses me most.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

I believe abortion should be available everywhere in the world because it is the woman's right to decide on the fate of the child as she is the carrier, nobody else should make the decision for her at all, and she is the one who weighs the pros and cons.

I don't want to misunderstand your post Rowe on such a sensitive subject. I agree with everything I deleted out, however this concerns me.

If two people conceive a child, it in no way should be the sole choice of one member of that party, in a consensual circumstance of course.

That quote is ambiguous above, in so much as, in reference to those of a so called higher "moral" standard making decisions on a massive scale I agree with what you say - but there are also going to be many cases of women whom abort regardless of a mans desires when a consensual act has taken place.

At that point, you move beyond freedom of choice and responsibility, and into callousness.

But the man doesn't carry the child. The woman does. Thus your point is invalid.

 

[TheMan]

^ I guess so, Meat Pie.

But stating that it's just a preparation for life; when does life begin then? There has to be a point where life begins. This is what confuses me most.

The issue is Nasty, nobody can really know for sure at what point true consciousness begins, as no one, regardless of what they may claim, knows either A) What consciousness even is, or B) Where it exists.

So all the talk of "weeks" etc, is all best guess - because you cannot define consciousness, where it comes from, and at what point the baby becomes "aware".

For all anyone knows, it is instantaneous.

Anyone who wishes to argue this point with me, show me a single peer reviewed study, proving where consciousness exists.

I believe in the complexity of life, and one rule cannot fit all, so I take neither side - as neither, regardless of their claims, are in full verse of the facts.