Proof why Abortion should not be legal...?

Question

lets leave religion and arguing whether its a baby or not at the door okay folks.


If a building was being demolished and out of the thousands of people there: one person claims to have seen someone enter the building, is it ethical for the building to be demolished as planned (without making absolutely sure no one was in there)?

If there is any chance of human life being inside, no matter how slight, its ethically wrong to go ahead and do something that would end that life?

As long as there is the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that its a real baby from the moment of conception, is it wrong to kill it?

We don't need to prove its a baby. While there is still a chance it COULD, be a baby, u have to prove it isn't, if u dont want it to be constitutionally wrong to have an abortion.

Answer 1

Abortion is killing a person at a very tender age. It is stoppage of life at its earliest stage.

Answer 2

Your analogy is not apt. In one case, you have the "slightest possibility" that a person may be killed in a building. In the other, you have the "slightest possibility" that an organism (or perhaps, even a ball of cells) "might" be a person. In one case, we know who or what's life we might be ending if we go through with a procedure (knocking down said building), in the other, we know there's a procedure, but we do not "know" what the consequences are.

In your building, if some crackpot came up and said there was still a person there, perhaps the investigation would be looking inside the building. Although there might be a small chance that a person is still there, there's a much larger chance that the coast is clear.
Likewise, scientists have investigated long and hard as to what a blastula, embryo, or fetus "is." And while there is a "potential" human there, embryos are not human (in fact, it is amazing that almost all mammal embryos look alike).
Of course, this is an open question, and it also depends upon your major premise that it's always wrong to kill (or, more correctly put, to terminate a human life.) Certainly, there are times in society when we do just that -- war, capital punishment, even the allowance of inventions and products which are known killers. If there was the SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY that someone would die in a plane crash, should we prohibit air travel? No.

Although my last example may be ridiculous, so is your premise that someone must "prove" that an embryo, fetus, etc is not a human. Of course it "could" be a baby ... but sperm and eggs "could" be a baby, under the right circumstances. Are you going to punish women for menstrating and men for ... well, you know?

Answer 3

Abortion should not be legal because it is a sin, crime, and murder. It would be the same if you went out and killed a 4 year old child. Killing an innocent baby is no different. It is human you know...it has a brain, a heart, and FEELINGS. The baby did not ask to be conceived! It should be given a chance at life. You should think before you lay down and have sex. If you can't handle the responsibilities and consequences that come along with it, DON'T DO IT. A question to consider before going through with abortion would be, "Would you have wanted your parents to abort you?" Everybody that is for abortion is already alive. It is sad that the babies feel all of the pain. How could someone be so cruel? You should look at some of the pictures of aborted babies and if that doesn't change your mind then you are a cold-hearted person. Abortion should be ILLEGAL because it is sick and mean!!

Answer 4

I understand where this analogy is coming from but I agree with the guy above who explained how it doesn't quite work. You've also left the woman out of the equation. It makes the assumption that if the embryo was to be considered a "real baby" that it would automatically deserve the right to be born. The embryo is then granted more power than the woman.

For many people it is not a debate of whether or not the embryo is a "real baby", it's about a woman's right to have control over what happens inside her own body. I don't feel you addressed that issue.

Answer 5

Whether it is a life or not, and whether it is a human life or not, is not a matter of chance or possibility.

There is no random possibility about the issue. It either is or it is not, and there is no way to test either way the philosophical and religious beliefs about souls and identity. So, it really does come down to which set religious and philosophical beliefs are going to be used regarding what defines life and identity.

But let's ignore all that, as you say. Let's assume for sake of argument that a child is a separate human life from the moment of conception. Then, it comes down to a different simple question ---- does the government have the right to force someone to provide life support for another person against their will?

That's the question. Can a person be forced against their consent to provide, out of their own body, life support for another? Because that's what denying abortion is equivalent to. Forcing one person to provide life support and nutrients, out of her own body, for another. Potentially against her will.

Don't think the analogy applies? Well, how about a newborn baby who needs a blood transfusion to survive. Only the mother (or father) is a valid donor. Does the government have the right to force that parent to give of their own body, if they choose not to?

And if the answer is yes, then you've thrown away the concept of autonomy and bodily integrity. You've opened the door to mandatory blood transfusions, mandatory bone marrow donors, mandatory organ donors.

If the government can force one person to provide life support for another, because that person has no right to bodily integrity and no right to say no, then the government can force pretty much any medical invasion because individuals have no right to stop them.

The right to bodily integrity, the right to control what happens inside our own bodies, must be absolute. Because anything else is more than just a slippery slope -- it's a rapid descent cliff, over which we lose the right to control what happens to us. Is that really what you want?

Answer 6

It doesn't matter - it's a done deal. Like it or not abortion is legal. The Supreme Court will never overturn Roe vs. Wade.

While I don't support abortion as a form of birth control, I think the best way to go about it is to educate women on alternatives and what abortion truly does to your body. It's still not that safe of a practice, even in this day and age. Education is much more effective that protesting or getting riled up over this issue.

Answer 7

I do not support abortion as a form of birth control, however it is necessary to have abortion in society. Laws have very little to do with ethics. Laws are not wrong or right many times, they allow humans to get along in society by providing rules.

Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion, it will end up killing the mothers and the fetus/baby.

Answer 8

Because they're are many variables, and circumstances that justify abortion and oh yea there's that little thing called WOMENS RIGHTS!!!! Leave the question alone im sure you would never understand, and if u want to have this debate feel free to IM or email me

Answer 9

IF, we agree that life begins at conception, then there can be no dispute! Ending ANY life, once it has begun, is wrong!

In my younger years, I might have supported that life begins when a child is born. In my elder years, I find that life begins upon conception.

Our age and needs (or lack thereof) dictate what is right and wrong.

Thus, depending on our specific beliefs at our present age, we decide right from wrong! What I once thought right, is today wrong! What will be my thoughts tomorrow?

IMHO

The Ol' Sasquatch Ü

Answer 10

A fetus develops a heartbeat as early as 3 weeks after conception, way before many women learn that they are even pregnant.