23 2

Should Abortion be Legal in all Circumstances?

I've always struggled in discerning whether or not abortion should be legal/illegal. I believe all life is sacred (although I'm not strictly religious), and that if we set rigid boundaries for what is categorized as life it could potentially be very dangerous, but at the same time there are extreme conditions where abortion may be forgivable/justifiable. But how do we combat scenarios where either people abort children for relatively no reason- or people are not legally allowed to abort children when in all reality it'd be better off if they could- whilst still maintaining a comprehensive law?

UtterTwaddle 3 Mar 28

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


No, Abortion in most circumstances is legallized murder


What I find interesting are those who are pro-choice but anti-death penalty.

I have been against the death penalty for nearly 30 years. Statistically I read years ago it actually cost more to execute someone than it did for life in prison. I never really understood how killing someone by the state made any difference. Horrible people exist, that do horrible things - sure. But unless I get to bash the SOB head in for raping/murdering my child - I can't see the satisfaction being served. Maybe to see them squirm before I die, but to carry that hate and bitterness, doesn't seem watching a person go to sleep and drift off to death would assuage that deep hatred anyway. Life in prison protects the community, serves justice, and saves money/time on every appeal you have to endure over the next 20-30 years before the person is executed anyway.

@jondspen I guess I see it from the perspective that there’s a family out there (or several), for every death row inmate, who would like the satisfaction of ”bashing someone’s skull in” per se, so it’s not just about me and what I would like to see. I also don’t see it from the perspective that it’s saving taxpayer dollars, because studies have proven time and time again that today’s prison systems (largely privately funded now, because they’re money-making machines, btw) aren’t reforming prisoners, but rather providing a structured hierarchy in which to purportrate organized crime, essentially ensuring the influx of prisoners never stops.

Considering 90% of states polled pay an aggregate of close to $40 BILLION per year in housing prisoners alone (anywhere from $30k to $60k per prisoner), I highly doubt death penalty appeals will exceed $40 billion dollars in prisoner expenses, considering there’s only roughly 2700 prisoners currently serving a death row sentence.....not even if Johnny Cochran himself was the attorney for every last one of them.

@thewaywayback79 It does - b/c you have to realize that while housing the prisoner, which is a cost that is incurred anyway, the systems also has to deal with the legal costs of appeals. Now granted, it is a soft cost, the DA and judges would be working anyway - but their time does cost money. Then add on the cost of a defense attorney, many times supplied and paid by the court system - so now you have two lawyers and a judge to pay - plus all the court staff.

Regardless, with the advent of DNA, and the alarming rate of convicts being found innocent later, the death penalty makes no sense, financially, morally, or ethically.




@jondspen I respect your opinion but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

@thewaywayback79 It's not an opinion - it's fact backed up by three links I provided and actual research by professionals in the field. Here are quotes just from the last link I provided:

"on average, Oklahoma capital cases cost 3.2 times more than non-capital cases"

"A February 2017 Fiscal Impact Report prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee of the New Mexico legislature estimated that bringing back the death penalty for three types of homicides in the state would cost as much as $7.2 million over the first three years"

"he researchers found that the average trial and incarceration costs of an Oregon murder case that results in a death penalty are almost double those in a murder case that results in a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of years. "

"the state spends $14.6 million per year to maintain its capital punishment system" "...also estimated that each death penalty prosecution cost Nebraska's taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution"

@jondspen sweetheart, the facts I presented to you, which you glossed completely over, are also FACTS. You have your opinions of the facts you gathered, as do I. I don’t need you to continue to regurgitate facts you’ve chosen to base your opinions on. I’m COMPLETELY OK with the fact we don’t agree. It’s COMPLETELY OK for human beings to have different opinions. I was trying to keep this an intillectual conversation between adults by telling you I RESPECT your opinion, however you aren’t changing mine, but keep throwing “facts” my way, in attempt to force-feed your narrative, and this is gonna get really ugly, in a hurry. So please....I respectfully ask you again: agree to disagree and move on.

@thewaywayback79 You say they are facts, but you cite no research to correlate your assumptions and conclusions - while I did. Please provide actual references to back up what is at this time, nothing more than YOUR opinion. While my position is buttressed by academics and professionals in the field, by multiple studies, and multiple references, yours is just your intuitive "doubt" to my position. I mean it's not that hard for you to provide actually links to your statements - so why don't you? And yes, I did completely gloss over them - because ( 1 ) you might be completely full of shit and ( 2 ) you are comparing apples and oranges in your argument

"largely privately funded now, because they’re money-making machines" but then go on to say "Considering 90% of states polled pay an aggregate of close to $40 BILLION per year in housing prisoners alone" - easily verifiable by a reference, so provide it - otherwise I can assume your are talking out your ass. First you say privately funded, then you argue the states fund $40 billion. The corporate prisons are funded by the state, and use the 'slave' labor to offset internal costs while still charging for full price. Let's clarify what is really happening here.

"I highly doubt death penalty appeals will exceed $40 billion dollars in prisoner expenses, considering there’s only roughly 2700 prisoners currently serving a death row sentence" - wow, there is so much to pick apart here. First, you doubt, but can't verify - no offence, but why should I believe you. You are just some random person on the internet talking about shit they might or might not know anything about. Thus why I ask for references. Second, appeals might not exceed $40 billion, but you are comparing apples to oranges. As I have repeatedly said, these prisoners are still incarcerated, regardless if they are in for life, or in till the state kills them. That cost has nothing to do with the appeals process, and is obvious that cost doesn't go away. Not like they get the death penalty and are killed the next day - it takes 10-20-30 years or more sometimes. Third, your $40 billion number includes all prisoners, but then you talk about only 2700, which is a vastly smaller subset of the population on a whole. It doesn't take $40 billion to house only 2700 inmates, so that who argument is B/S. Yes, these lifers might cost more to house in the long run, but as my research links stated, the cost of the trial, appeals, and all the other crap that goes into capital punishment cases makes it more expensive. One reference said $1.5 million, not including the millions to upkeep the death penalty system. Using your numbers 1.5 million / 60k to house - 25 years. So with an appeal process that lasts 15.5 years ( [] ), plus another 25 years for the cost savings, you can house a prisoner for life for 40 years and still come out cheaper than a death penalty. And that number doesn't even include the report from Nebraska on the $14.6 million divided by 12 ( [] ) is another 1.2 million - or another 20 years! 60 years in prison is still cheaper for Nebraska than seeking a capital punishment conviction.

You can keep trying to change my mind, but again, my links actually cite studies by government agencies and researches in the industry that look at this stuff. If you have other info or studies that refute them, by all means, post the links. I would also add that patronizing me by calling me sweetheart is also a bit condescending - just saying.


Having just seen the movie Unplanned tonight, I can only echo the thought that regardless of whether abortion remains legal or is made illegal, we as a culture must make it unthinkable. And Planned Parenthood must not receive one more dime from the citizens of this country.

Going to see it tonight with 2 teenagers.

I agree. Money that goes to Planned Parenthood only enables them to distribute birth control. Birth control should be harder to get, especially for the poor. That obviously will result in eliminating abortions.

Wow, I didn't realize that you could only get birth control from planned parenthood! I was always told there was many ways to obtain it. I am shocked to have something I've always believed to be true, to be exposed as a massive lie! Thank you for educating me. I suppose planned parenthood doesn't also make most of its revenue on providing abortions, and that those videos i saw of them negotiating the sale of, and harvesting baby parts, were doctored as well? My eyes have been opened because of your truth. Thank you so much.


In the future, our generation will be judged. Our generation will be thought of as worse than Hitler, Mao, and other tyrants that we look down on. They will have a rough count for how many lives were murdered by abortion. I want no claim to being a part of a society that supported abortion.


There is a whole genre of thought experiments in moral philosophy known as "reciprocity". For example, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". and the "veil of ignorance", i.e. what rules would you set if you knew you were going to be born into a society but didn't know the circumstances.

When "rights" collide, as they frequently do, we have to decide who's rights give way. Either the mother's, for a number of months inconvenience (agree - may be very serious inconvenience), or the child's. Ask yourself - how would you like to be treated in each of those circumstances. Put yourself in both the shoes of the mother and your own shoes. Do you like your life?

My wife and I have two spare bedrooms. Anyone with an unexpected pregnancy and serious challenges is welcome. We have a stable house and lovely cat, and only too happy to have you live rent free for a while as you sort yourself out. PM me if you need this.

love acting your beliefs,not spouting and running..thanks


Rape - sure, I can see abortion. Health - like the woman might die. Ok - I can sign off on this one also. Health of the child, i.e. it has some genetic abnormality where it's QOL will be degraded, as well as an exceptional burden to the parents - hmmm....that is a hard one, and while I see both arguments on this, I would not want to burden the parents with a child they didn't want to raise - esp for a child to grow up possibly feeling unwanted and a nuisance.

Other than that, I can't think of any other off-hand, esp. the situations where the woman was just being irresponsible and didn't even try to take precautions to prevent pregnancy. If it's her body her choice, I say let's start with the choice to not become pregnant with the preventative use of condoms, spermicides, birth control pills, or good old fashioned oral sex. Murder just b/c a woman can't be inconvenienced at this point in her life to raise a kid is B/S, and irresponsible.


Make it legal in all circumstances. If you want to reduce abortions make other forms of birth control cheap/free and easy to get. I bet you would have a massive down tick in abortions if everyone could get an IUD. (Especially if there was a male equivalent on the market). Also get rid of abstinence only sex ed. I think the only reason to keep that around is to make sure you have a decent pool of virgins around for ritualistic sacrifice. Why else would you keep someone completely ignorant of basic biological functions?

Awesome post. I agree wholeheartedly.


If you believe life is sacred, then what is the debate? Its a modern version of child sacrifice. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. A blood offering to the Gods of Lust and irresponsibility


I am an absolutist in this area. I do not believe abortion should be legal. The legalization has been continually abused. The Canadian government would not provide summer work grants to organizations who would not sign off on the right to abortion. Babies can now be aborted at full term which makes me want to throw up. Life, all life, is precious. Yes, I am a Christian, Catholic specifically, so I have this foundation and a great deal of personal experience in this area. I would not be alive if my mother’s attempts to abort me had been successful and I live with my son my husband pressured me to abort. And for those who want facts not feelings I am providing you with both as I cannot imagine how you can ignore either when it comes to destroying human life.


The destruction or tampering with and eagles nest is a federal offense. Huge fine and jail time. Not the egg....the nest. The logic offered the potential reproduction of raptors does not apply to human's. Sadly odd!


Why isn't it the woman's life, decision? Why are her basic rights violated? You know, I hope, the horrors perpetrzted on BORN kids? Abuse? Sex abuse? Homeless?, satanistic rituals? Sex slavery? Slavery?
Prostitution? Pedophilia? Child marriages?
How's that sacred? How's the treatment of born babies, reaching fully functioning humanhood not mentioned but foetuses? Bring on more? Who cares the female is a druggie, a prostitute, full of diseases, addicted?
Passing addiction al0ng.

But there should be a narrow window for this. 10 weeks. I think the later ones are big business, not much money in small, unformed foetus.
Lots of SPERM around, a woman can have another.
I think satanists, pedophiles (part of elite) want their supply.
Is that sacred, a kid being abducted,sold,caged, tortured?

If you'd been aborted, or I, over, right?
Every baby WANTED, then that's sacred.


From what I've read, in most cases where a baby is the result of rape or incest, women who keep the baby have better mental health outcomes than women who don't. In fact the women who have been raped complain that they are used as pawns by pro-choice people, who haven't actually asked for their opinions on the issue.


It's easy to feel revulsion at killing a human being and we can argue about when a human being becomes a person - but we can relate to it in that we understand the horror of death - we can fear it because we understand what it means. No matter whether you regard a foetus as a person or something else I would argue that it does not have any conception of death and while it may be able to feel pain, can it be aware of pain? Over all I feel less strongly that killing of a foetus than I do about the killing of a conscious child or adult.
Beyond the immediate moral issue at the moment of abortion, there is a longer term issue that I think about, and that is whether people who don't want to bring children into the world should be forced to do so - whether being born into such a situation would be a net good, and whether that attitude to life might be heritable and/or learned from the parent. If we have limited resources on this planet should we not encourage only births from people who are genetically and culturally predisposed to valuing life and who love creating it and raising it well? It is a similar question as asking whether it is OK to let people sterilize themselves (or commit suicide in the extreme). Evolution has made us very good at seeking to do the things that make babies, but with effective contraception and freely available abortion there is now selection pressure also for actually wanting babies. Those that want them (all else being equal) will have them and those that don't won't.

Adoption. These people won't be forced to raise a kid they don't want. Also, it just might force some people to think before they act, and realize their actions have consequences. As far as orphaned kids filling up the state/foster care system, make the bio parents pay in to help offset the cost - they don't get stuck 100% raising, but are also being held responsible for being irresponsible people. Condoms, birth control, spermacide, oral sex - there are many alternatives to avoid an unplanned pregnancy.

@jondspen If we save the children, we save the parents genes which may not be the best use of resources if they end up like their parents. If the parents are desperate to kill off their genetic legacy we might be collectively better off if we allow them to.

@FluffyMcDeath Part of your argument is true, but I highly doubt people would engage in irresponsible behavior as is done today, knowing that you can't get an abortion, and you will have to pay "child support to the state" if you don't want to raise it. You see many young men today walking away from marriage (MGTOW, Red Pill) b/c of family court and financial extortion. I think if women were held to the same standard as men in this regard (supporting the child) - there would be a huge change in behavior, esp since there are many birth control options that are inexpensive. I would also counter argue that genetics doesn't affect your 'moral compass' to the extent you give it credit. Sure, there are some people with mental illnesses that can pass that on - but the majority of people who support abortion are not socio/psychopaths, who inherited their beliefs genetically from their parents. I argue it is more environment factors growing up that shapes one POV on this topic.

@jondspen I'm not talking about genetics tilting moral compasses, just desires and wants. Instead of forcing people to do what they don't want to do (and forcing those "not wanting" traits to persist, let those traits die out. It is a very rare genetic anomaly to find people who have no hunger, because such people die quickly if they exist. Force feeding them could cause that trait (if it has a genetic basis and certainly would have) to pass to another generation, and this would just increase the number of people who had to be force fed in the next generation. Not forcing people to have kids and pay to raise them may drop a population's IQ a little if it's true that intelligent people don't breed, but it may also raise IQ if it's the case that low IQ people are the chief users of abortion.
If abortion was freely available to women, they may chose to abort if the father won't commit to raising the child and this would also weed out irresponsible male genes.
We currently do have a system that forces fathers to pay for children and it's called marriage, though that has been muddied by extending it to couples who can't actually produce biological children.

@FluffyMcDeath "We currently do have a system that forces fathers to pay for children and it's called marriage" - it's also called child support via family law system where the father has no say or rights essentially. I tried to read your post above, but had trouble understanding what point you were trying to make. "I'm not talking about genetics tilting moral compasses, just desires and wants" - completely confused on what point you are trying to make. Also, it is proven that lower IQ people have more kids, typically can't afford abortions, and are usually spitting them out b/c of government welfare programs that support them. I guess another solution is to remove the welfare state, "government supported mother" situation, and make abortions covered by private individuals, not government subsidized programs.

@jondspen On the point of morals and evolution: morals is a fairly complex system of concepts but I can't see a way that evolution can work on concepts. Evolution works on instincts and instincts are mediated by what we experience as feelings.We feel hungry, or we feel horny, or we feel angry or we feel happy - and each of these sensations is our subjective experience of a motivating instinct. There is also present in humans a very strong ability to suppress instinctual actions, to resist the immediate emotional motivations. People who give into their feelings too quickly are impulsive. The fact that we can be coerced by threat of punishment is testament to our ability to subsume emotional motivation.


The final decision belongs to the pregnant woman.

Personally, I would oppose any abortion of a conscious fetus. Consciousness commences at about six months. For a margin of safety, prohibiting abortion after five months would be reasonable, until safe fetal electroencephalographic tests can be made.


My question is why do we comment, discuss & get upset about other people’s issues. You question is valid. The decision is always with mother of unborn ultimately.
Got me thinking. Thanks


Abortion is not a religious decision for me, however it should not be used as birth control.
A mothers health must be considered, and circumstances such as rape. There is a demand for adoption.
I do not believe that abortion should be legal for babies in their 7 months and later. That is murder in my view.These are babies that can survive and get adopted.
This topic is personal for me. When my parents were living in a communist country and food was so scarce and life was so difficult, the doctor who had my mom on the table changed his mind. He said that I will bring them luck in the future . He was right because we were chosen to come to Canada 59 years ago.


Not my body and it might sound wrong but it’s population control in the getos . It sucks and is wrong but if it’s rape and the woman gets pregnant then ya it’s ok to me . Most of these young girls , yes girls are not growing up with family values and it shows there fathers are not involved and be come to premisceuse ( I can’t spell ) and end up having sex to young . No self respect and it is past down generations. This is what the democrats push sorry to say they won’t victim mentality.


An individual can (has the natural right to) do what ever they like to themselves. That's the essence of individual freedom. To expect everyone else to support their behavior, when their life is not at risk, via taxpayer funded health care is ridiculous.

But what a woman is doing is not done to herself, it is being done to another living being.

@jondspen Every thing is composed of infinite sub-beings. All your sub-beings "are belong to you". That is how you exist. An embryo is not a separate being when it is attached to its mother. Just like the molecules of the food you eat become you when you absorb them. You are what you eat, and a pregnant woman is in part the sperm she absorbs and the embryo she is attached to. What separates a woman from her embryo is a scalpel when it cuts the umbilical cord.

@HereNow "Every thing is composed of infinite sub-beings." No. They may be composed of finite sub systems, or even finite symbiotic organisms, but not infinite sub-beings. "All your sub-beings "are belong to you"" - again, no. Bacteria in my gut are in my gut, but they don't belong to me. I don't own them. "What separates a woman from her embryo is a scalpel when it cuts the umbilical cord." Again no - I can cut you off from access to food, but that doesn't mean you no longer are an individual, nor does it mean you are no longer a part of the environment. I will concede that there is a point where the embryo can not survive outside of the womb - but you must also concede there is a point where the embryo reaches a developmental stage where it can survive - with or without assistance. Just like you can survive in society and nature without assistance, while still requiring assistance (food, water, shelter, etc).

@jondspen I meant "composed infinitely", my BAD.

Belonging, owning, ...etc, all simply refer to the degree to which two systems interact. A mother and her embryo have a common circulatory system; the embryo is fully contained within the mother. They are one system at the cellular level interactions.

Everything has whole/part duality, so you can perceive a part of a system as an individual whole, but only in that it is distinct from other parts, not that it's separate from the other parts, because, after all, everything is interconnected. It's the degree of interconnection, the depth of interactions, that determines the relative independence of each part, not only distinctiveness. A scalpel severs the lower level interactions between the mother and its embryo, making the embryo more independent, more of an individual.

The reproduction of beings is a profound event and, yet, it is a common everyday event. Bringing a human to life has both positive and negative effects within society, the magnitude of which varies depending on the level of organization at which it is analyzed. Like everything else there are two aspects of consideration. The problem is that most people perceive only one of the aspects and consequently develop an unbalanced perspective. For a mother carrying a fetus, the consequences of a birth or abortion are much more profound for her then for society as a whole.

All of that is why abortions should be legal and not be publicly funded. It's entirely an issue of individual freedom and sovereignty. And the absence of public funding will decrease the abortion rate. Of course, women fighting for individual freedoms and at the same time fighting for publicly funded abortions is really stupid.

@HereNow "Of course, women fighting for individual freedoms and at the same time fighting for publicly funded abortions is really stupid." - that is one point I think we can both agree upon.


I think very early on like a few weeks but I wish people new there’s birth control and condoms or common sense


I am religious and do believe that all life is sacred! However, if the life of the mother is at risk (which is rarely ever the case today) then that might be the only possible reason to endorse the action. Other than that, I think abortion should be illegal!



join a discussion on the underworlds of the average citizens outlooks on the topic of abortion, or any other political issue youd like to discuss


If anyone can watch this and still say abortion is being legalized because it's a women's right to choose, or decefected babies are burden's, or it's not really population control, it's about giving us option's then there is no help in explaining what MORAL'S are.


That’s a decision that should be left up to the mother in the first trimester, longer if the woman’s life is endangered or something bads wrong with the baby like down syndrone.

Downs Syndrome. .I can't believe you think that a problem! they are invariably the sweetest persons on planet Earth

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25435
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.