Young Writers Society

We must consider that, if abortion is illegal, that would be taking away a woman's rights for the rights of a jumble of fetal tissue. If a woman doesn't want to go through nine months of pregnancy, it is her body, and she should have every right to terminate the pregnancy. Besides, there is a difference between a possible lifeform and a lifeform. If you're going to penalize people for aborting fetuses, you may as well penalize women for have a menstraul cycle or a man for ejaculating while not having intercourse.
Yet again, I'm 14, so what do I know about morality?

Just a quick note... nobody's going to dismiss anything that you say, just because you're fourteen, all right? So, no worries. ^^;;

I believe in human life - I value it deeply. But I also deeply believe in choice.

Here's how I see it:

Abortion IS killing/murdering a human -- the debate of when a fetus becomes a baby is idiotic and believers of it are, to be frank, imbeciles (not trying to be offensive to anyone). A fetus is always a baby.

However, taking away a woman's right to this choice, to the control over her own body is taking away her rights that women are protected by.

I am pro-life, but I am 100% okay with people who are pro-choice, because I too believe in choice.

I would never take away a woman's rights. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be, or at least should be, to make it a LAW that a woman can not choose what happens to her own body. I would never want that imposed on myself or on someone else.

However, if I knew someone who was thinking about an abortion, I would do everything in my power to persuade them against that. I would suggest keeping it, adoption, whatever.

It is ultimately the person's choice - but we can help sway them.

On a side note, that doesn't mean go to extremes. For example, there are pro-life activists that stand on the corner just off of my school's property where everyone can see them with posters of aborted children. My school is a mix of highschoolers and middleschoolers. I have a sister in middleschool, and I found it so outrageous that those people were going to be there for her, for small children in cars driving down that road, to see those posters that I actually went out there and got into a fight with them (nothing physical).

Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter.

If you're going to penalize people for aborting fetuses, you may as well penalize women for have a menstraul cycle or a man for ejaculating while not having intercourse.

Except that ova and sperm on their own are genetically incomplete and are physically incapable of developing into an independent organism on their own. It takes an ovum and sperm successfully merging together, their DNA successfully recombining, and the result successfully implanting in the uterine wall to make a viable embryo, and later fetus.

You're comparing things of two completely different biological functions, and it doesn't work. It's like comparing a hammer to a stick and rock; the stick and rock may make up the hammer, but they do not necessarily share the same function. The function of sperm and ova is to increase genetic diversity through sexual reproduction; the function of a zygote (which develops into a fetus) is to develop into an independent organism.

Penalizing women for menstruating because one is pro-life is also ridiculous for the simple fact that the menses are an uncontrollable side-effect of fertility. If a woman does not menstruate, she cannot bear children.

I would never get an abortion, whatever the circumstances. I am going to argue why, in all circumstances, abortion is wrong. I would not get an abortion because I believe it is murder, and wrong.
If a woman of any age is stupid enough to become pregnant through her own choices and actions then she had jolly well better have the baby. I do not object to her then having the baby adopted, it may well be for the best, but she should go through with the pregnancy. She has made a new little life and she should not kill it. Yes, it may complicate her life for a few months, cause lots of embarrassment and affect any exams she is taking etc. and then cause her some pain. However, if she is stupid enough to behave in a manner that gets her pregnant before she feels she is ready to have a baby then she deserves all of the consequences and should deal with them, and think a bit more before she partakes in activities that could get her pregnant again.
If the woman is raped then I appreciate that this will be very traumatic for her, and she most likely will want to put the baby up for adoption, but I believe that she should give birth to the baby. She shouldn't punish the unborn child for the father's actions. This would make her a murderer.
There are other circumstances, however, that are more complicated than this. I would not want to judge a woman who had an abortion for the following reasons too harshly, even though I would never do so myself.
If the child the woman is carrying is diagnosed with one of the illnesses that would mean it would definitely die after only a week or two then I think that she should still have the child and give it that week or two of life. That is what I would do.
If the woman has an illness that will mean that she will definitely die if she continues the pregnancy, then I know this is a very complicated one but I would still have the baby.
I know some people will disagree with my arguments but I believe abortion is always wrong, and a sin. I want to point out that not all Christian's agree with my views, but that they are my views.
In conclusion, abortion is always wrong but I appreciate that sometimes it is extremely complex

I'd just like to add about eight-year-old's becoming pregnant and the baby killing them that if you are capable of having a baby, your body is most often ready to have a baby.

If the woman has an illness that will mean that she will definitely die if she continues the pregnancy, then I know this is a very complicated one but I would still have the baby.

In the case of ectopic pregnancies, the mother dies long before the child has developed enough to survive outside the womb, and so the child dies as well. The mother's death is extremely painful as part of her womb ruptures, and if the shock doesn't kill her, the internal bleeding will. The only way to save the mother is to abort the child.

Under those circumstances, do you still believe the mother must not abort?

I'd just like to add about eight-year-old's becoming pregnant and the baby killing them that if you are capable of having a baby, your body is most often ready to have a baby.

Actually, no. Just because you can become pregnant does not mean you can healthily carry the child to term. The younger the girl is when she becomes pregnant, the more likely she is to miscarry, give birth prematurely, give birth to a child with birth defects, and/or die. An eight-year-old's body hasn't had the time to develop the structures that make safe childbearing possible (i.e., her hips haven't widened, which means a very narrow birth canal for the baby to pass through; her back muscles and bones are not developed enough to handle the constant strain of carrying a growing child in her belly; etc.). About the only way an eight-year-old could safely give birth is if she has a C-section, which, considering C-sections are not natural in addition to everything I mentioned before, makes a pretty strong case against eight-year-olds being ready to bear children.

The age most girls become physically able to bear children without harm to either the child's or their own health is eighteen.

However, if she is stupid enough to behave in a manner that gets her pregnant before she feels she is ready to have a baby then she deserves all of the consequences and should deal with them, and think a bit more before she partakes in activities that could get her pregnant again.

I just want to say something about this - maybe it's just me, but I find it offensive when people use expressions like 'If she's stupid enough to become pregnant'. I know there are still religious people out there that believe sex is only for when you're willing to have children, but the majority of people aren't like this; a big part of the educated world believes that sex is for fun and is part of a relationship, especially a serious one, as much as it is for reproduction. No form of birth control is 100%, neither condoms nor the pill. If a woman who does not want children but is in a relationship, using protection, and still becomes pregnant, I don't think it's right to classify her as stupid. Stupid implies it's her fault, whereas she's taking every precaution she can to keep from getting pregnant.

As an aside, those who recommend abstinence as a form of birth control are being pretty unrealistic - it's telling people not to do what we are biologically programmed to do. That's like condemning sex, which is also unrealistic, especially in our society.

Also -

If the child the woman is carrying is diagnosed with one of the illnesses that would mean it would definitely die after only a week or two then I think that she should still have the child and give it that week or two of life.

I personally find it very admirable that you truly believe this, and I'm not trying to dismiss or devalue your opinion, I just want to say that this is also an unrealistic expectation of the majority of women; most likely, having that child for those one or two weeks in addition to the nine months of pregnancy is going to result in the woman forming a stronger attachment to the baby, in which case its death will hurt so much more than if the woman had had an abortion.

Additionally, if the child was that sick that they would likely die within the first two weeks, those two weeks of life would probably be marked by quite a bit of pain and prolonged suffering. Do you believe that the two weeks of life are worth it when the baby will be suffering for that time period? I'm just curious.

More on topic, I'm decidedly pro-choice. As long as the foetus wouldn't be considered viable yet, I support abortion in most situations, though I can never comprehend how some women seem to regard abortion as a method of birth control and choose not to use protection because, oh, well, they can always get an abortion after...! I support abortion, but that doesn't mean I believe it's pleasant, and I can't imagine why women would be willing to put themselves through it multiple times just to avoid using a condom.

Normally I would say no to this question. No child is a mistake, and if you put yourself at risk to get pregnant, then that is your consequence. Also, getting pregnant is the whole point in sex, so why are doctors creating all these ways to prevent the one purpose of having intercourse? It's ubsurd. Also, it shows that you are being selfish, that you are not willing to step up to the plate, and be a good mother/father.
Now here is where my argument get's a little confusing. In seventh grade I was talking to a friend of mine, and she told me that in fourth grade, this one girl got prgnant, in fourth grade! She was raped, and she had started her period at a very young age, so she had an abortion. That's where I said it depends. If your having an abortion, because your boyfriend forgot his condom, or you and your husband are just not ready for kids yet, that's not okay! If you are having an abortion because you were raped, that's another issue. You were forced, you were trying to abstain in the first place, and if you are ass young as that fourth grader, having a child can be very dangerous to your health. Not to mention the mental scarring you'd have for the rest of your life. When you think about it, abortions should only be used for certain cases or situations. Not just walking in, and saying "I want an abortion," and they give you a gown. The doctor should consider giving an abortion, like they would a hysterectomy. If some women just walks in and says "I don't want kids any more," they would not remove all their reproductive organs. Something would have to be extremely wrong for them to even consider giving a hysterectomy, so why can it not be the same for an abortion? The answer is: they can. The only reason why the don't is the same answer for most Americans: Money. Abortions bring plenty of money each year, and if they discontinue, all that money is going to someone, somewhere else. Probably that new baby's mouth, so instead, they kill the child, and use the money on building a new hospital. Overall, it really depends, if you were raped, then yes an abortion is okay, but if it was your decision, then no, let the child live.

June, I agree with you 100%! Couldn't have said it better myself.

And Pigeon, you're not very nice. I disagree with you, but I'm in a bad mood right now so I'm going to stop before I say something I don't mean. But I deleted it, so you should delete yours.

Okay, guys, the question is about abortion. That is not an invitation for you to preach about sex. You're a 19 year old virgin? Great. I'm glad that works for you and I wish you all the best, but it doesn't work for everyone, and you don't get a say in what everyone else does. Sure, the idea that abstinence is unrealistic because hormones can't be controlled may not be totally accurate. Some people, like yourself, can control that sort of thing. A lot of other people can too, but that might not mean they abstain, it might just mean that when they have sex they do it on their own terms. And then ther's a whole lot of people who are in circumstances which you know nothing about and things happen. To expect some people to carry a baby to term, let alone raise it, on top of everything else that's going on in their lives, is completely unrealistic.

I don't really like the idea of abortions either, that's why I think we need better sex ed classes in schools, so people will be prepared and the number of unwanted pregnancies will go down. Rather than pro-life or pro-choice I would label myself pro-contraception.

Well, sorry about the rambling, but my point is, answer the question. tell us what you think about abortion, don't tell us when to have sex.



Edit: Stargazer, I'm sorry if I offended you, but this is my honest opinion, and I will not delete it. I am sorry that you deleted your post rather than standing by it.

What we must understand is that this cannot be a matter of opinion. While we have opinions about it, we must establish what is factual to find truth.



To compare murder to abortion, we must break down their definitions. This may seem tedious, but we must understand the difference between abortion and murder, provided there is a difference, and we must recognize the similarities as well.

Murder (as according to dictionary.com) -The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.


Unlawful - Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules

Premeditated - Think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand


Killing - An act of causing death, esp. deliberately.


So, by definition, murder is the unjust, planned causing of death.



Abortion - The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.


Deliberate - Done consciously and intentionally

Termination - The action of bringing something or coming to an end

Pregnant/ pregnancy - Having a child or young developing in the uterus.

So, by definition, abortion is the intentional bringing to an end of a young developing in the uterus.

What I personally notice is how similar the definitions of "murder" and of "abortion" are. Murder is the planned causing of death, while abortion is the intentional end brought to a young developing in the uterus. Are murder and abortion different? If so, then can we justify abortion?

While being an embryo, while being a fetus, the child in the womb doesn't look much like a child. As it develops, it begins to look more like the baby we are familiar with.

You, reading this, were formed during fertilization. You were once an embryo. You were once a fetus. Were you not a human being during these stages of growth?

Where is the line between human and not human? Is a human not a human until it's first independent breath? Is a human not a human while he/she is helpless and entirely dependent on his/her mother? Is there a magical transformation during birth that makes us an official human?

Is a frog not a frog while it is a tadpole? Is a chicken not a chicken while inside its egg? Where is the line? We are asking basic questions. Life and death are simple to understand. If you are living, then you are living. If you are not living, then you are not living.

A child developing in his/her mother's womb is living. Yes, the child is fully dependent on his/her mother, but will not always be. You reading this were once fully dependent on your mother. You do not remember this time, but not because you weren't alive, simply because your memory wasn't as strong then.

Do you think that if your mother "wasn't ready" to raise you, that you deserved the death penalty? Do you think that all those murdered babies whose mothers "weren't ready" deserved the death penalty? Did they not deserve to take that first independent breath? Did they not deserve even a chance at life?


Can we justify the intentional ending of the life of an unborn human?

To say that a woman should be able to choose, is to say that anyone should be able to choose whether or not they want to do something. If we base our world on freedom of choice, then what can we make illegal? Nothing.

Soon we will be able to justify anything on the principle of choice. We will be saying "We should be free to choose if we want to take money from someone, we should be free to choose if we want to form a violent cult, etc."


If we base laws on freedom of choice, we can justify literally anything. If we follow this trend of legalizing actions based on freedom of choice, the world will be complete chaos.


If you are at all interested in my personal opinion of abortion, I believe that it is wrong.

Why should a child be stripped of its humanity, and then deprived of its chance at life? How can a human, who was once dependent on their mother, justify the "termination" of a young human in that current stage? How can a mother lack any form of affection for her own child, which she provides shelter for? How can we betray our own young? How can we not have pained consciences after killing our own babies?

I find it repulsive that this argument has made it this far into the world. The fact the mother, whether or not she chose to be a mother, would not want her own child shocks me. I promise all who read this, that if I am either raped or simply careless, I will not ever chose to end my own child's life.

hopeispeace wrote:What we must understand is that this cannot be a matter of opinion. While we have opinions about it, we must establish what is factual to find truth.

I disagree with you there. Abortion is an extremely personal matter and so it is all about one's opinions and one's beliefs. Breaking it all down to words and definitions doesn't give sufficient attention to the emotional aspects involved.

hopeispeace wrote:Do you think that if your mother "wasn't ready" to raise you, that you deserved the death penalty? Do you think that all those murdered babies whose mothers "weren't ready" deserved the death penalty? Did they not deserve to take that first independent breath? Did they not deserve even a chance at life?


Can we justify the intentional ending of the life of an unborn human?

You can't compare abortion to the death penalty. Having a pregnancy terminated is ending a life which has no consciousness, cannot fear death and is not aware of anything around it yet - people on death row are.

hopeispeace wrote:I find it repulsive that this argument has made it this far into the world. The fact the mother, whether or not she chose to be a mother, would not want her own child shocks me. I promise all who read this, that if I am either raped or simply careless, I will not ever chose to end my own child's life.

Not all women are the same, not all want to be mothers. If a woman who doesn't want children becomes pregnant and decides to terminate because she doesn't think she has the conditions to raise the child in, or even because having a child would ruin any prospects and plans she has for herself, then I think she has a right to do it. Perhaps you will view this to be a selfish attitude, but say a woman is pregnant, doesn't want to give up her child for adoption but doesn't want to keep it either because it would mess with her own life too much. She has a right to life her life the way she wanted to, too. Becoming a mother is in a way an incredibly selfless act that not everybody is ready for, and not everyone can make.

I think it's a valid argument, to be honest. Personally, I do think abortion is acceptable under certain conditions, even though for instance I don't think I could ever have one. But I can easily understand why other women would. It all comes down to how the woman feels about having a child, and I honestly believe it's a very personal decision and as such should be left up to the potential mother to make, not be forced on to anybody by the law.

Pigeon3 wrote:Okay, guys, the question is about abortion. That is not an invitation for you to preach about sex. You're a 19 year old virgin? Great. I'm glad that works for you and I wish you all the best, but it doesn't work for everyone, and you don't get a say in what everyone else does. Sure, the idea that abstinence is unrealistic because hormones can't be controlled may not be totally accurate. Some people, likeyourself, can control that sort of thing. A lot of other people can too, but that might not mean they abstain, it might just mean that when they have sex hey do it on their own terms. And then ther's a whole lot of people who are in circumstances which you know nothing about and things happen. To expect some people to carry a baby to term, let alone raise it, on top of everything else that's going on in their lives is completely unrealistic.

I don't really like the idea of abortions either, that's why I think we need better sex ed classes in schools, so people will be prepared and the number of unwanted pregnancies will go down. Rather than pro-life or pro-choice I would label myself pro-contraception.

Well, sorry about the rambling, but my point is, answer the question. tell us what you think about abortion, don't tell us when to have sex.

Okay, first of all, yes, no matter what the circumstances, you always have a choice. Whether you know the reason why you wish to abstain or not, you have the power to control yourself. Second of all, improve how? They give us all they are allowed to legally teach us. Just this year, they forced my class to see pictures of people suffering STDs, and let me tell you, it fully convinced me to abstain. Third of all, things do not just happen, you made the decision to go see your boyfriend/girlfriend, in a potentially risky situation, and you chose to ignore the moment where things did become risky. Also, (just a general suggestion), if someone reading this was a 19 year old virgin, maybe that could be because they are not married yet. There are people in this world that still believe in no pre-marrital sex, I myself being one of them. Sorry if I sounded rude, it just truly frustrates me, when people wonder why people who are in college or after college are still virgins. That's their decision be it religious or not. There is no law stating that at a certain age you have to have sex, even if society claims that it is cool. Final thing, and I will send my second post apologizing for being so rude in several days. The only reason why some of us preach about sex is because that;s how you get pregnant, you can't have an abortion without having sex. They are connected.
Sorry if I seemed mean, but I had to let that off of my chest.

I understand where you're coming from. Yes, abstinence is a sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy. But contraception is pretty damn good too. So, people who abstain are not the only ones being cautious and sensible, and not every one who has sex is putting themselves in a risky situation.

Also, (just a general suggestion), if someone reading this was a 19 year old virgin, maybe that could be because they are not married yet. There are people in this world that still believe in no pre-marrital sex, I myself being one of them. Sorry if I sounded rude, it just truly frustrates me, when people wonder why people who are in college or after college are still virgins. That's their decision be it religious or not.

That is absolutely fine. I was not saying you have to have sex and I have no problem with people choosing to abstain. All I was saying is that it is a personal decision, so while people are free to choose abstinence, they are also free not to.

Second of all, improve how? They give us all they are allowed to legally teach us. Just this year, they forced my class to see pictures of people suffering STDs, and let me tell you, it fully convinced me to abstain.

You're lucky then. Your school must have a better sex ed course than mine. I was not taught very much at all, and I assumed most schools were similarly insufficient, but that may not be the case.

Third of all, things do not just happen, you made the decision to go see your boyfriend/girlfriend, in a potentially risky situation, and you chose to ignore the moment where things did become risky.

You do not know the circumstances of every single time people have sex. Some people, especially teenagers, feel completely out of control in their lives. Some people have too low self-esteem to say no. Some people are repeating abuse patterns from their childhood. Do not assume that everyone is in the same position as you and fully able to make that choice.

Sorry if I seemed mean, but I had to let that off of my chest.

You did not seem mean, just passionate, which I respect.