ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Banning Abortion Is Immoral - "It causes pain and ends a life" - debunked

Updated on June 16, 2012
Embryo
Embryo

Consider this: vegetables in your kitchen were once living cells too. Though I can only imagine that you have no problem with them being slaughtered for your nourishment simply because they do not feel pain and they do not think.

Neither does a fetus when aborted. In both cases, we are dealing with groups of living cells.

You might argue that "the fetus could grow into a human"

So could an ovum; women get rid of at least one of those every month without weeping or feeling sorry for the life that could have been; men don't cry when they ejaculate billions of potential humans.

We cannot base our decisions on potential, we must base it on what we know will actually happen. Either ruin a mother's and a child's life, or have a happy mother. The choice is easy.

"Yes it would be psychologically hard to raise an unwanted child, but who are mothers to decide when to end lives?"

If you're saying this, it means you're in a much better position than a lot of people. A lot of people who do not agree with you.


What about in cases when for example, the woman has an 80% chance of dying if she would have a baby (requiring a dangerous cesarean for example). This does happen. With a ban on abortion, you allow these woman to die, for a group of cells that cannot feel pain, nor have consciousness. In what way is that moral?

Talk about not having the right to end a life? The ban ends lives by killing mothers, useful members of society.

Rape

Another point which is difficult for you to argue against is one that happens very often. In Africa, where rape is very common (1 in 2 in Cape Town), as is poverty, is it moral to reject an abortion for a woman who is struggling to feed herself, let alone another being? When it is more than likely that this woman will abandon her baby (this happens a lot) because she cannot look after it?

At that point, not only did you endanger these impoverished women's lives and put them through the pain of labour, prevent them from working and earning the small amounts they were earning, you allow the fetus to grow into something that does feel pain and let it die as a living, breathing, thinking: human.

We cannot close our eyes to the obvious consequences. A total ban on abortion is by no means moral.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Mmm yeah my ads were disabled because it was a controversial topic, but no actual banning as of yet, I hope it survives too because there are so many people who say outright "abortion is immoral" which is of course ludicrous.

      Thank you for your time and effort, looking back at this hub I can see it needs work! If it is to survive I need to re-vamp :o not Philanthropy standard at all!

      Thank you again and I'll be sure to check out your hubs when I have a spare moment, you seem like an intelligent human being!

    • topquark profile image

      topquark 5 years ago from UK

      I hope this hub survives. My hubs about abortion and the underhand tactics of the pro-life movement have been censored by HubPages. It makes me wonder whether the site has an official anti-abortion policy...

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Here here!

    • topquark profile image

      topquark 5 years ago from UK

      I completely agree. Banning abortion is morally indefensible. Any restriction on abortion rights is an act of violence against women. I would like to see legislators tried and sentenced for their crimes against women.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      "Philanthropy, I will look at a fetus for what it is"

      Considering it has no properties of a fully developed human because by definition it is "not a fully developed human" I think we're both in agreement then that a fetus is not a person at all :)

    • lstCitizen profile image

      lstCitizen 5 years ago from California

      Philanthropy, I will look at a fetus for what it is, and not wish it to be something else, like a sperm cell or like a vegetable.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @1st Citizen,

      A fetus has neither a nervous system, cognitive perception, nor any developed features of a human being. Furthermore it is not a certainty that it will develop into a human being.

      Lastly, every single diploid cell in your body has a full set of DNA. You do not cry murder when a skin cell dies, but that skin cell had the DNA to be a human being.

      Do not spout nonsense such as "objective reality", a fetus has no characteristics of a person, look at it like a sperm cell or a vegetable.

    • lstCitizen profile image

      lstCitizen 5 years ago from California

      Philanthropy, the objective reality is that at conception, a new human life begins its existance. It posesses its full identity as all of its characteristics are coded in its DNA. It is a person. Its gender, eye color, hair color, even its fingerprints etc. are all in place. It is not a potential. There are no alternative possibilities. Absent any intervention, it's growth into a unique adult is a futuristic certainty. This idea that a fetus is not a person, or it is a potential person, is entirely false. A century or more ago, it might have been reasonable, but now, given the state of modern science, the idea is ridiculous.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @1st Citizen,

      "It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless person. Always."

      Well that's good, because a fetus isn't a person of any sort. I imagine that you do not call yourself a murderer for the many wet dreams that you would have had over your lifetime.

      Also you're completely wrong. If it came to the case where either you kill one innocent defensless person, or 100,000,000 innocent defenseless people, you would be a monster to let 999,999,999 die.

    • lstCitizen profile image

      lstCitizen 5 years ago from California

      It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless person. Always.

      The fact is that at conception, a new human life exists. It is a person. It is NOT a potential person. It does exists and it posesses its full identity as all of its characteristics are coded in its DNA. Absent any intervention, it's growth into an adult is a futuristic certainty. This nonsense about a "potential" should stop. We are not stupid.

      The fact is that sex makes babies. If you do not wish to have a baby, do not have sex.

      Rape. If ever there was a way to give rapists license to commit more rapes, it is by abortion. We use the crime of abortion as though it wipes away the crime of rape. It doesn't. Yet with it, we keep women vulnerable to more victimization. Abortion kills the innocent and rewards the criminal.

      Pain. It makes no difference whether you kill a person with pain or without. They are still just as dead. Are we to accept murderers as long as they kill their victims while they sleep, or use lethal injection instead of a gun? Of course not. This is absurd.

      It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless person. Always.

    • Daughter Of Maat profile image

      Melissa Flagg OSC 5 years ago from Rural Central Florida

      Ok, I had to skip through most of the large column of comments here so forgive me if this comment repeats anything. But...

      THANK YOU!!! I have been using the vegetable argument for years. And honestly, how do we know 100% that they don't feel pain in some way? Just because they don't have as intricate a nervous system as we do, doesn't mean they don't feel pain in some way we don't know of yet. (Granted, I have a bit of a bias to plants and the earth as a pagan, but still...)

      Even if the abortion isn't medically necessary, there should be no law against it. For a mother to bring a child into this world that she truly doesn't want only subjects that new life to torment and abuse from neglect. No she doesn't have to keep it, but most of the time it's much too difficult to give up your own child even if you don't want it than to terminate it before it becomes truly human.

      I absolutely love your work, Philanthropy! I believe you write about issues that everyone wants to brush under the carpet and ignore rather than hash out answers. Great stuff, really!

    • TripleAMom profile image

      TripleAMom 5 years ago from Florida

      I'm going to jump in here, but not to argue or berate anyone else. I just want to give some of my own opinions and some facts I've found (multiple books and websites). I believe that life begins at conception when the egg and sperm join. I don't thing that the egg or the sperm in their own entity is life but could be potential life. A baby can't be made without the joining of the egg and the sperm and fertilization taking place. Without fertilization there is just an egg and sperm. Maybe a good analogy is the difference between a fertilized chicken egg and one that is not fertilized and harvested for food. One is life, the other is not.

      According to things I've researched, between 20 and 25 days after conception, the heart starts beating, which means there is a circulatory system. I was actually able to see this with my children when I had an ultrasound at my first visit to the OB. Amazing. Then,At 56 days, the circulatory system is given an emphasis as well as the developed organs of the embryo: the brain, heart, umbilical cord, vertebrae, stomach, kidneys, lungs, and liver. At this stage, all the major organs are in place. That's about 10-12 weeks after conception. I'm not sure where 24 weeks came from as an idea of when a baby begins to feel pain, because I've had friends that gave birth to children a week or two prior to this who survived (actually one with NO lasting complications amazingly enough). This baby is now actually 7 or 8 years old now.

      The last thing I want to say is that it bothers me when all Christians are lumped into the extreme radical haters that bomb abortion clinics. Obviously you've figured out that I am a Christian, but it is my opinion and the opinion of everyone, and I mean EVERYONE I know, that this is absolutely wrong. That would never be a thought that would cross my mind. In every group of people there are those that take their opinions to the extreme and decide they are going have their 15 minutes of fame. American soldiers who go on shooting sprees DO NOT represent all american soldiers, because one African American is a drug dealer absolutely does not mean that all African Americans are drug dealers. (just an example). Those would be ridiculous statements.

    • A Thousand Words profile image

      A Thousand Words 5 years ago

      I agree with EuroNinila

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thank you Euroninila, I couldn't have said it better myself! :)

    • EuroNinila profile image

      Fotinoula Gypsyy 5 years ago from NYC BABY

      Interesting and controversial read. I believe that a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to keep her baby or not. I just wish that more people were really educated about this topic. Bringing a baby into this world is serious stuff, yet so many people in the US and others alike, especially developing countries who may not have these options, do it like bunnies and mistakenly bring poor babies into this painful world with nothing. Then a lot of these people expect the government to pay for it all. There's so much to say about this topic, so I will stop now. I just wish that everyone all over the world would please be more responsible in their decisions and educate themselves about this topic.

    • Borsia profile image

      Borsia 5 years ago from Currently, Philippines

      I find it somewhat amusing that many who condemn abortion, because they believe that life starts at conception, then say that the woman has the option of birth control such as the morning after pill or the standard BC pill.

      Do they not understand the mechanics of these?

      In the case of the BC pill the uterine wall is triggered to reject the implantation of the fertilized egg. (fertilized egg)

      The morning after pill causes spontaneous rejection of the embryo which is nothing more than a chemical abortion; more accurately an induced miscarriage / period.

      But we need to remember that a woman can't take a morning after pill every time she wants to have sex and the BC pill has some nasty side effects for many women.

      I've seen a number of posts that say people shouldn't have sex if they don't want a child.

      Well, that is pure BS. Sex is and has always been recreational for the majority. One would think that in 2012 they would have figured this out.

      Again they are trying to force their religious beliefs on those of us who believe otherwise.

      I know several pro-life Christians who have had vasectomies. (Yes, believe it or not I have a number of Christian and even Creationist friends.)

      None of them ever even considered abstinence as the answer to their desire to have sex, simply because they like having sex.

      Of course there are billions of us who not only don't think sex is a sin but believe that it is a healthy and necessary for our mental and physical health.

      Many of these same anti-choice zealots fight sex education and want to defund any program that promotes sex education and gods forbid that they should make birth control available to teens, or anyone else. Somehow they think that while abstinence has failed since the dawn of man it will somehow catch on today.

      Yet many of them got married because they had “a problem”.

      In other words they are against the very things that would reduce the numbers of abortions from ever being needed in the first place.

      A final comment about those who make the claim that if a woman doesn’t want her child she can just put it up for adoption.

      The fact is that this might be true for some healthy white women, but for most OTWs, along with any woman who is an addict or alcoholic, the adoption agencies are already finding it impossible to place the children they have now.

      I know there are some who are screaming “racist” at this but the last time I looked numbers have neither race nor bias and this is what statistics say.

      If we were to add the children who would have been born if abortion were outlawed the numbers of needing children vs the number of people who want to adopt would be completely out of whack for all races. I won’t even start to go into the “defective” children’s chances.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      So far we've had:

      "Because life isn't in a man's sperm only, nor in a woman's egg only. Life is in the joining of those two things. Conception" to which I asked for an explanation and received none.

      Then we had something akin to "God wants all children so it is wrong" again with no explanation to the fact that sperm and ovum are also potential life.

      You see, rationality dictates that we do things for a reason. If aborting a foetus makes everybody concerned happy and nobody sad, then we should do it. The foetus does not feel emotion and so is not considered a human being but a mass of cells, it's needs should not be put on the same level as one who can feel the consequence.

    • profile image

      Brenda Durham 5 years ago

      Philanthropy, those WERE good reasons I posted. I have several reasons in addition to the several that I already posted. But you're not in the mood to listen to them because your mind is set on your own idea of what happiness (yours and others! And others you're leaving out!) is at the moment.

      So, yes, I'll stop wasting your time as well as my own.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Brenda can we cut it short and stop wasting my time:

      Do you have any argument against abortion other than the idea that God does not agree with it?

      Other than that point you haven't argued anything at all.

      That point, believe it or not, isn't taken seriously by any successful government. Secular countries will never care about what God thinks.

      Taking God out of the equation, there is no reason that women should not have the right to do what they want with their bodies. Therefore, rationally, there is no reason that women should not have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

      Once again you cry about a "potential life" that is not wanted, but every time a woman has a period, that ovum is an unwanted child too.

      Thus I conclude that you think abortion is wrong because that's what God told you to think.

      Please then understand that everyone else won't buy into that idea because it is founded on nothing.

      If you wish for abortion to be banned, then you will have to argue with reasons.

    • Borsia profile image

      Borsia 5 years ago from Currently, Philippines

      Brenda; I doubt that you were ever considered an unwanted child, nor was I.

      But that is irrelevant to the woman who doesn't want to have a child. Neither you nor I have any rights to her life and happiness or to her future, which she may not want to cut short or even sidetrack for an unwanted child.

      Again you want to put your gods into the lives of others who don't believe in them, or want anything to do with them, or your beliefs.

      Nobody died for my sins, though millions died for our freedom; and that includes the freedom to choose our own destiny.

      When, or if, I "sin" that will be for me to pay for. I have never asked or given consent to any deity to fall in my place.

      Sadly not every child is wanted, loved or even cared for. Statistics show us that many of those unwanted become society's problems. And many of us have no desire to pay for either their upbringing or their storage place in the prison system. It is a sad fact for sure but a fact none the less that the availability of abortions and the crime rates are directly linked.

      As to your devotion to your gods, I would never try to interfere with your rights to believe whatever you like. But by the same twine I would never allow someone else to claim any acts of their gods in my behalf. Nor do I welcome any gods into my life.

      The sooner we stop trying to run the lives of others the sooner we can run our own as we see fit.

    • profile image

      Brenda Durham 5 years ago

      Philanthropy2012,

      In response to your words about ceasarean section births, I'll tell you that both my sons were born by c-section, and they are my blessings! During my first son's birth, the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, so an emergency c-section was necessary. With the second child, I had a voluntary c-section because my doctor had said natural childbirth might actually rupture the original incision, very dangerous. However, I didn't know that c-sections were as dangerous as you've made it sound, but even if I had, I believe and would hope that I would've still wanted to bear those children. I've never for one second regretted having them. The bond between mother and child existed long before they were even conceived. Because I wanted them. Just as the bond between God and His children existed and exists, strong, innate, unbreakable, solid, unless one chooses to deliberately break it.

      While I am aware that young women and/or even older women may find themselves in situations sometimes that they feel they need to make a choice, it's still wrong to even think we have a choice! But God is merciful to those who repent. But once we have the knowledge of right and wrong in these instances, we have no excuse for deliberate killing of the unborn. We even have no excuse for our lack of love. But always God is forgiving to the repentant heart.

      Just knew this needed to be said. All praise to THE Giver and Taker of Life, the Creator God! Who, I will add, we are not.

      I am wanted. Every child is wanted by someone, even if it's "only" God Himself!

    • profile image

      Brenda Durham 5 years ago

      Borsia, I thought on this a bit before replying here again. And I will say that your cold-hearted reply (especially your last sentence) was hurtful. But only at first. Because I got past that hurt when I realized 2 things---1 is that I am needed (in life and in politics even) even if left-thinkers like you and jenubouka do not want or welcome me. And 2 is that I am indeed welcome and wanted. By my parents who chose to let me live and by my family who love me. And most of all by my God who knew me from before I was even in the womb. Your comment brought my mind to the parallel between that and all those "unwanted" babies whose lives hang in the balance at the mercy of your uncompassionate heart. Praise God! And thank Him for His Love that passes all understanding and His ability to love the unwanted; and even the unloveable for whom Christ gave His life, including you and me.

      Amen.

    • profile image

      jenubouka 5 years ago

      Thumbs up and high five Borsia, couldn't of said it better.

    • Borsia profile image

      Borsia 5 years ago from Currently, Philippines

      Brenda; If you aren't hearing anyone saying this you aren't listening very carefully since most of the Republican candidates are saying it. Gingrich went so far as to say that he has a real problem with the disposal of unused embryos in fertility clinics.

      I suppose he would have us either shut down all IVF or save every embryo forever. This from a man who abandoned his family and had to be legally forced to help support his children.

      Jen; You are absolutely right! A woman has the right to control her own body, and that includes anything growing within it.

      I support the right of free choice under all circumstances. There are many reasons why women choose to terminate a pregnancy, some better than others. But the bottom line is that when it comes to your own body and your own life all medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not by politicians or outsiders to the situation.

      I hold the same opinion for abortion, assisted suicide, prostitution and drugs as well an a number of other things.

      For those of you who think these things are a sin I will point out that I, and billions of others, don't share your concepts of sins, gods, heavens or hells.

      If you believe that abortions, suicides, etc are morally wrong that is your choice. Nobody is going to come in the night and force you to have an abortion.

      But your beliefs don't give you the right to intrude into our lives, and you are not welcome or wanted.

    • profile image

      jenubouka 5 years ago

      Always Philanthropy.

      This is a sticky and actually violent subject to write, for some are so deep in their mindset to allow any other opinion.

      And to further the "vegetable" theory...There are some extremist that shun anyone who "cooks" a vegetable past 130 degrees, proclaiming it is killing a living thing. On with the controversy...

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thanks for sharing your views Jen! :) You're right it is a can of worms, but it's good to show that many women are for abortion because it is a right to do what you will to your own body and that which is dependent on it!

      And you make a good point about hypocrite pro-lifers!

      People find it shocking when you compare a fetus to a vegetable, but the closer you look, the more obviously similar they are :o

      Thank you for your food for thought Jen :)!

    • profile image

      jenubouka 5 years ago

      Okay here goes a can of worms....

      As a women, there should be not one limitation to what I can do with my body, nor should I be shunned for making a choice. Who is the almighty here that tells me sorry lady we (law or government) out of moral mindset don't believe you have the right to choose what is best for your body.

      For those who are pro life then where is the moral for bombing clinics that first promote safe sex? Hmmm? If you believe in the quality of life then surely that means all quality right?

      The main issue is that I sure as hell do not need my corrupt POS American government deciding what I can and can not do with my own body.

      Is Abortion Immoral, is a sense of using it as a form of birth control, of course. For the women who neglect to protect themselves and end up "flushing" the fertilized egg numerous times yea I see a problem with that.

      Note: fertilized egg, one can not face scientific facts on this one, so yes I agree with 24 weeks after the fertilization of an egg is too far into a pregnancy. Elected abortions are not performed after 12 weeks to boot.

      Did you know that plants and fruits have male and female organs? And did you also know that the "fruit" is actually the ovary of the plant that you eat. Hmmm...

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      It is indeed Sorites paradox :D

      And I would agree with your drawn line. The question posed becomes "When is it wrong to kill an organism?" and the answer tends to be "when it feels pain". Regardless of whether it is a person or not, if it doesn't feel pain, then it should be seen as moral to kill it (for the benefits of the mother etc.)

      We do, after all kill vegetables and fruits.

    • cbl2988 profile image

      cbl2988 5 years ago from Mesa, Arizona

      It's Sorites paradox. When does a human life begin? Conception? NOPE! Twinning can occur weeks after conception. Did the human life split in two? Not likely. Again, a potentiality is not an actuality. It is damn near impossible to tell when to draw the line. The best I can come up with is 24 weeks. It is only shortly after that, that consciousness and sentience begin to develop in the fetus. So 24 weeks seems to be a good point to draw the line right there. What does anyone else think?

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      So what difference does it make that the sperm is in the egg?

      You're okay with sperm dying, you're okay with eggs dying, but when the two come together, for some reason you're unhappy about the one cell, now with 23 more chromosomes, dying.

      This considering the fact that the cells do not feel any pain just like the egg and just like the sperm.

    • profile image

      Brenda Durham 5 years ago

      Philanthropy2012, no, I don't weep at the thought of cells lost when a man masturbates or a woman has her period! I weep at the thought of a conceived child whose parents consider them only a group of cells or a parasite, etc. Because life isn't in a man's sperm only, nor in a woman's egg only. Life is in the joining of those two things. Conception. Conception is what makes a child. I'm not against birth control. I'm against baby-killing.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @Brenda, many religious organisations feel the need for a total ban on abortion and make their arguments about "minorities" and "only a few women who get raped will get pregnant" (2 in 1000) and don't matter because their religion deem it to be incorrect. This hub is mainly against those who believe that a total ban is needed and that no one gets the right to abort a fetus.

      As for your pill point, yes you're right there is such a thing, in developed countries they are very accessible. As for Africa where a lot of rape occurs however, the pill is by no means readily accessible. It is all very well and too easy to imagine the effects of a law in your own life, but no one ever thinks of the impoverished Africans or Asians in dire situations :S

      Smokes Angel & Brenda Durham,

      As for the vegetable and fetus, please explain to me the difference for I am not seeing it at all.

      Brenda, do you weep every time a man masturbates or a woman has a period? In both cases billions of things that could have developed into a "a live human being" as you put it, did not.

      I address this in the hub, please counter the counter argument, not the argument that I have already countered!

    • Smokes Angel profile image

      Smokes Angel 5 years ago from Broke Alabama

      I am sorry there is a big difference between a vegetable and a fetus. For one thing a vegetable is not going to develop into a live human being. A sociopath might come to a conclusion like this because they do not value others.

    • profile image

      Brenda Durham 5 years ago

      I don't know of anyone who's calling for a "total" ban on abortion. It's my understanding that a woman who needs to choose between her literal life or the life of her unborn child at time of delivery, etc., has always had that choice, along with the doctor's prognosis and the child's father's opinion. And in cases of rape, I believe there is a "morning after pill" that would prevent a rape victim from conceiving or going through the thought of undergoing a pregnancy caused by a criminal.

      So I find your argument too liberal, really. You're leaving out the responsibility of the women (and men!) who choose to have sex.

      And I wish I didn't feel it necessary to say this, but....your comparison of human life to "vegetable life" is not even an equal comparison at all.