Daniel Halliday
Jun 3 · Last update 2 mo. ago.
Should abortion be legal worldwide? Is abortion a basic human right?
On the 25th May 2018 Ireland, a country famous for its strong link to the Catholic Church, voted to legalise abortion with a two thirds majority. The United Nations has likewise defended abortion as a human right internationally. Is it time to consider abortion as a basic human right and fully amend international law? huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/united-nations-committee-affirms-abortion-as-a-human-right_b_9020806.html
Stats of Viewpoints
A foetus is not a baby, regarding it as such threatens women’s rights
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Women should have the free choice to terminate unwanted children
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Abortion is morally contentious & making it completely legal could have massive social consequences
0 agrees
1 disagrees
Laws should reflect the beliefs and moral values of people they represent
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
A foetus is not a baby, regarding it as such threatens women’s rights

A foetus is not scientifically regarded as a baby until it is born. Foetuses are dependent on the mother for survival, to argue that they can or should all be treated as a baby is not helpful to this deeply personal medical issue. It is great that science has allowed us to save some foetuses that would have naturally died, but that should not be an excuse to extrapolate that thinking into a one size fits all legal frame work. The issue of abortion is a deeply personal and a case specific issue and should be left up to two people to decide, the mother and doctor.

Agree
Disagree
Women should have the free choice to terminate unwanted children

Child poverty is rife in a world that is arguably already massively overpopulated. Considering the massive cost of raising a child, is it not kinder to the child and potential parent/s to terminate an ill fated life before it starts, than to add to the shocking amount of children in poverty? Of which UNICEF writes “387 million, or 19.5% of the world’s children live in extreme poverty compared to just 9.2% of adults. Children represent half of the poor yet are just one third of the underlying population.”

This becomes more worrying when you consider the state of adoption in the world. There are an estimated 153 million orphan children worldwide. Considering also the relatively low yearly adoption rates both internationally and for individual countries is in its thousands, that leaves a lot of those children in vulnerable conditions. The adoption process also takes time, the average orphan in America spending 3 years in state care before they find an adoptive family. However, many countries don’t even have an adequate foster care system for these children.

Furthermore there are complication and health consequences in which legal abortions could help to protect women from dying in childbirth. Cases such as that of Savita Halappanavar, who died as a result of being refused an abortion have ended in the reform of Irish law surround the issue of abortion. Giving all women free choice would help us prevent making these issues worse and help to protect women in vulnerable situations like Savita Halappananavar. Considering the time the adoption process takes isn’t it less painful for all involved to allow abortion to be a basic human right? Should it not be up to a person when they want to have a child? Where do we stop adding to a problem before we realise how bad it has become?

data.unicef.org/topic/overview/child-poverty showhope.org/2015/06/19/9-stats-about-the-orphan-crisis sos-usa.org/our-impact/childrens-statistics nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 18
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
http://data.unicef.org/topic/overview/child-poverty/ https://showhope.org/2015/06/19/9-stats-about-the-orphan-crisis/ https://www.sos-usa.org/our-impact/childrens-statistics https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html
Abortion is morally contentious & making it completely legal could have massive social consequences

With declining birth rates in developed countries around the world, the last thing people should be doing is encouraging abortion. They should be encouraging adoption. An easing of abortion legislation would just result in an increase in promiscuity and disease, not to mention the damage such an invasive procedure could have on a woman’s body, making it completely legal would just maximise the chances of this.

However, that is not to say that legislation on abortion shouldn’t change. In many countries it is still illegal to have an abortion following rape. This would be a potentially psychologically devastating ordeal for a rape victim to go through, following the initial devastating act of rape. So, although all out legalisation may have undesired consequences, international laws on abortion could be improved.

Although abortion law may need reform around the world, recent attempts to amend laws in the US have come under criticism for being almost akin to infanticide. American politician Kathy Tran recently proposed as part of her Repeal Act, that decisions on abortions could be made by one doctor not three, and abortions could be carried out up until the point of giving birth. The failed bill and comments made by Virginia governor Ralph Northam in support of it were widely criticised as an attempt to legalise infanticide, show just how controversial this issue is. More should be done to reform laws for rape victims and push for increased adoption, not hijack the debate to push a pro-abortion agenda, after all an unborn baby is still a baby.

foxnews.com/politics/va-gov-faces-backlash-for-comments-on-controversial-third-trimester-abortion-bill dailycaller.com/2019/01/31/kathy-tran-caterpillars-same-day-abortion theinterim.com/issues/abortion/abortion-industry-promotes-sexual-promiscuity

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 18
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
With declining birth rates in developed countries around the world, the last thing people should be doing is encouraging abortion. They should be encouraging adoption. An easing of abortion legislation would just result in an increase in promiscuity and disease, not to mention the damage such an invasive procedure could have on a woman’s body, making it completely legal would just maximise the chances of this.
Laws should reflect the beliefs and moral values of people they represent

You cannot judge what should be applicable in all countries, many countries, where abortion is illegal, are highly religious, and value this religious doctrine above all else. In countries where democracy is the political system of choice, it should be decided democratically, what the majority of the population believe to be right regarding this issue. But to enforce a world law on these populations could potentially be disastrous.

To export your ethical mindset, and believe it to be the only way to see the world, is an obnoxious standpoint and will only lead to hostility and conflict. Many countries are not a member of the International Criminal Court and multiple have stated, antagonistically, that they do not recognise its authority. This includes many powerful nations such as the United States and China, so just as it is difficult to impose bans on certain weapons worldwide without escalating nuclear tensions, it could be both difficult and dangerous to impose a law such as this.

Likewise most territories of the world rank low on the Global Democracy Index, meaning that most states tend to lean more towards that of a dictatorship. These countries may not reflect the beliefs of the people of that country at all, but may be imposed individual beliefs of the ruling elite. This makes these regions less susceptible to adhering to any international law of any kind. Although this may seem a virtuous proposition on paper, it would be difficult to make happen and could have really dire undesired effects and a harsh backlash. States and societies need to come to a position of supporting human rights on their own accord, any efforts to force such things may only lead to conflict.

infographics.economist.com/2018/DemocracyIndex eiu.com/topic/democracy-index dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/the-dangers-of-imposing-u-s-law-on-others rsocialconscience.com/2013/12/13/imposing-human-rights-and-moral-values-on-others

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Mar 18
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
To export your ethical mindset, and believe it to be the only way to see the world, is an obnoxious standpoint and will only lead to hostility and conflict. Many countries are not a member of the International Criminal Court and multiple have stated, antagonistically, that they do not recognise its authority. This includes many powerful nations such as the United States and China, so just as it is difficult to impose bans on certain weapons worldwide without escalating nuclear tensions, it could be both difficult and dangerous to impose a law such as this.
Translate