Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

well said

Abortion should be easily accessed, legal, and covered under government healthcare. Also, this may sound a little extreme but I have no idea how in modern times people can still be against abortion. The main limit I have on abort is 3rd trimester abortions, or basically when the foetus can survive outside the womb.

To begin this, I want to premise this with the fact that - if you don't like abortion, don't get one. But don't force your decision on me.

Firstly I'd like to point out one thing, a foetus is not a baby. A foetus is a collection of cells. It does not live, breath, remember things. It only exists because of the woman carrying it. It has the potential for life, but it is not life itself. Referring to it as a child is faulty.

To put this in another perspective, lets create an analogous (if preposterous) scenario. Say that there is a young adult who, in order to survive, needs to be hooked up to another person. Not forever, just for 9 months. The other person can still do most things, but they're going to be limited in a lot of ways as well, and suffer a great deal of agony during the separation process. There also going to have a different body shape, have a weaker bladder, things like that for the rest of their lives. In our western society, there is no possible way this would be allowed. it may be the most utilitarian thing to do - one suffers a little, and then the both go on to live functioning lives. But, in a society that values liberty and personal autonomy above nearly everything how can you argue this should be legal?

But, you say, when a woman gets pregnant she, most of the time, chooses that action. She knows the risks, she knows what will happen.

First, I wish to point out the disparity here between what the male has to endure compared to the female. Childbirth is not a pretty thing, and the months leading up to it are not pleasant either. Both took they same amount of risks, why should one suffer through this and not the other?

Secondly, I'd like to just alter the earlier scenario a bit. Say the person caused a car crash, that was solely their own fault, which caused the person to be injured. Due to their recklessness, a person needed to be attached to another for some months etc. Should they be forced, by law, to do this? One might argue it's the moral thing, but the law could not and should not enforce this. We don't force people who injured others in car crashes to give up their organs, or donate blood, or do anything similar to that, so why should we force this person to sacrifice her body for 9 months in order to do so?


Essentially I feel that if a foetus/baby/whatever cannot survive outside of the woman, it has no inherent right to be there. People have ultimate control over their bodies and you should not force them to sacrifice 9 months of their live to another when they have committed no wrong.

Comments on others arguments:

Er, no? How about some backing up of this point? Has there been some survey done which irrefutable proves that everyone who has an abortion is some selfish person who is inherently evil that I don't know about? I don't think being unwilling to sacrifice 9 months of your life, and go through agony is being selfish...

Um, no? Having sex does not make you a tart. Sex is not wrong. Sex is legal, (if you're of age) and sex is normal. Having sex does not make someone a bad person. In addition, you say it's the womans fault, and yet I see no mention of the man here. I don't see you calling him a 'tart'.

Er, no. It's just clear not everyone shares your morals, so how about you stay out of my uterus and I won't force you to have an abortion?

Because it has no right to be in her in the first place. It doesn't matter if her actions caused it's existence, the fact is that a woman has control over what happens in her body and should not be forced, under any circumstances, to lose that control.