I don't think there is ever a clean cut answer for these topics.
Its hard to give an opinion when you have never experienced this, but for me I am pro choice, but I have some issues with the way it works in the UK.
Abortion limit is up to 24 weeks which I think is completely wrong, as babies are developed, perhaps not fully but they are living beings by that stage. Therefore, I think the abortion limit should be reduced dramatically, however you can hear a baby's heartbeat between 8 and 12 weeks, so its hard to say whether this is the reference point of which life begins.

Morally wrong? I think it depends on the context. For example, using it as an extreme contraceptive is clearly wrong. But what if the mother's health is at risk? Whether the child will be born with biological abnormalities or illness? Or the mother became pregnant through assault. I think in these situations the mother has the right to make the choice which is morally correct for her and her child not for society.

Religion.. the cause of many problems. I'm not even going to comment on that 

In terms of 'murder' again its the context and when you believe a baby's life begins. I think after 24 weeks when the baby is clearly a fully functioning life form, it could be argued as murder as it is indeed another human being. But again, does life being inside or outside the womb? There are no clear answers

I think the limit should be reduced dramatically, and abortion should be provided in extreme circumstances.

I think it's something we should all hope is gone from our society one day. Hopefully one day.

I can see the argument from both sides. I think it's hard to argue that a fetus at any stage isn't a human being of some sort. Yet I also think it's silly to compare a month old fetus to a newborn baby, as the two are obviously very different.

I'm not sure I want the government to be able to ban voluntary medical procedures. I think the way to move forward on this issue in the future is more along the lines of addressing the reasons why a woman feels the need for an abortion. This could be several things from financial concerns to social stigmas about young motherhood, or a woman feeling she has to choose between a child and a career/education.

I think if we start to address those problems it would be a lot more effective than having a ban on abortions (which often don't work anyways, just leads to women having unsafe illegal abortions).

Whether you think a fetus is an individual or not at conception does not mean that they have no rights. We live in a society where non-human animals have rights, for example, the Animal Welfare Act that protects domesticated animals. This means that the fetus has every right to live and that right should not belong to the mother or father.

There are extream circumstances where abortion may be the only viable option, such as pregnancy through assault or when the mother is at serious risk. In those situations, it is understandable and you could agree that it might be the only option. But that does not mean its moral. You can look at China for example and see whether aborting a child based on sex is moral or not. Abortion of disabled children falls into that same category. Everyone should be given an equal chance at life no matter what disability you have or do not have. As society continues to normalise abortion and technology become more advanced, what extent will other traits/characteristics come under for reasons of an abortion?

If a woman wants to keep the child and someone purposefully harmed that child and resulted in its death they would be charged with murder. However, if a woman does not want the child then it is perfectly fine to end its life. This sort of hypocritical debate occurs when you try to justify immoral actions being moral.

Whether its legal or not is out of my control. We should be able to make our own choices without the judgement of others. However, we should also be truthful when we discuss the moral ethics of our society.

Feel free to disagree

All women should have the right to decide on their own body and health. Reproductive self-determination is a human right laid down in a number of international conventions.

Restrictive abortion legislation does not reduce the number of abortions. Abortions are still carried out, but in unsafe forms. Numerous studies support this (see e.g. The Lancet and WHO). Women risk their lives with unsafe procedures, and it's especially notable in poor countries. The right to abortion creates a more equal society.

My body, my choice. Simple as that for me.
If a woman wants to have an abortion up until the last day of the legal limit, that's fine. If a woman needs to have an abortion after the legal limit due to risk to her own life, that's fine as well.

of course, do as you please with your body. However, a fetus is not part of a women's body it grows inside her. A fetus is a separate person and has its own rights. A mother does not choose whether her child lives or dies outside her body.

of course, do as you please with your body. However, a fetus is not part of a women's body it grows inside her. A fetus is a separate person and has its own rights. A mother does not choose whether her child lives or dies outside her body.

The fetus survives off of the womans body. Without the womans body, the fetus wouldnt exist. Thats why laws are imposed on when abortions can be carried out - the 24 works is suggested to be when the fetus is viable outside of the body and more likely to survive (studies have shown more do survive outside the womb at 24 weeks now, but at 23 weeks the chance is unlikely - so im not opposed to that being lowered).

Therefore, still, my body my choice.

I am not debating whether abortion should be illegal or not. I am asking on what moral ground is it okay to terminate another's life and rape and the pregnant women's health are the only two option. Even in the case of rape, there are methods to prevent pregnancy.

Yes, a fetus survives off of woman but that does not mean ownership. As a child, you survive off your parents but at no point do they have ownership you.

@Auri is Life - Your position assumes that a fertilized egg deserves the rights and respect of a human being. What is your evidence for why they should be treated this way?

I agree with Amys points here and also part of Reecas.

The limit has to be reduced, so many more babies born at 23 weeks survive due to the advances in medicine. 

I am not against abortion at all, its never an easy choice to make and some women never get over the choice they made and live with regrets.

@Powerless You assume you have to be Human to have rights. As I pointed out, you don't, domesticated animals have rights, test animals have rights. Just because you are not fully developed, does not mean you can disregard its right.

I am not debating whether abortion should be illegal or not. I am asking on what moral ground is it okay to terminate another's life and rape and the pregnant women's health are the only two option. Even in the case of rape, there are methods to prevent pregnancy.

Yes, a fetus survives off of woman but that does not mean ownership. As a child, you survive off your parents but at no point do they have ownership you.

How exactly are there ways to prevent pregnancy from rape?

Lets say, as an example, I'm a woman who isn't sexually active, therefore I don't take any kind of contraception - coil, pill, implant, whatever you want to say. Are you saying I should be forced to take that just in case some asshole rapes me so i'm not forced to carry his child? Or should I just carry some condoms round with me and ask the rapist to nicely put one on for me?

Even with contraception, its not 100% you're going to avoid pregnancy - mistakes happen, things fail.


Rape & health of the pregnant woman - ok - are you talking about just physical health? if it could cause death or serious injury? or are you talking about mental health as well. Because if I was to get pregnant right now and wasnt allowed an abortion, my mental health would sure as hell take a tumble. & I imagine a large proportion of woman have an abortion because they are not ready which would in turn affect their mental health and their own life.

@Powerless You assume you have to be Human to have rights. As I pointed out, you don't, domesticated animals have rights, test animals have rights. Just because you are not fully developed, does not mean you can disregard its right.

@Auri is Life - Animal rights =/= human rights. The topics of conversation are COMPLETELY different when it comes to the treatment of each. Why do we not hear abortion debates regarding chickens, dogs, cows, etc? Because they're not of much interest because people simply don't equate human pregnancy with other animal pregnancy. The fact that you used "test animals" as an example is questionable given how obvious that treatment of humans and treatment of test animals are so so completely different. You're still avoiding my overall question.

So I ask again, what gives fertilized eggs the rights of a full human being?
What is your justification as to why we should treat fertilized eggs as if they're already fully developed humans?

@Powerless
1) You have not read my comments at all. Quote me where I said a fertilized egg has human rights. I did, however, say a fetus has human rights, which occurs past conception. A fetus has the major body organs, in my opinion, that is enough...

2) Chickens, cows, dogs don't have abortions. Do not know where you got that information from.

3) Again, you have no read my comments. At no point have I talked about animal pregnancy. What I said is how can we as a society say a fetus has no rights in whether it has the chance to live or not while there are animals like dogs and cats, who are not human but still have the right to live.