So what about for example Taiwan, China, Japan, Australia, Timbuktu, Nigeria, New Zealand, South Africa. Do they have the right to? Didn't think so, you clearly didn't think it through. Have a look at my username. xx
Well, no. I think aborting should be legal in two situations.
One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child.
In my opinion, and I think people would agree with me. Aborting a severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, causes less stress and mental damage than having the baby. Because for some parents it just isn't an option to raise a severly disabled or ill child.
And in some cases, the doctors tell the parents that their child will only be able to survive for let's say two years. I think they should also have the right to abort after the 24th week.
You can not abort a child after the 24th week of a pregnancy.
After that point, you will have to carry the baby until it is born. If there are dangerous circumstances during a pregnancy the doctors will try to safe both the childs and mothers life.
As the pro in this debate, I support abortion as a basic right but acknowledge that rights come with moral and ethical considerations. In the specific scenario of a viable fetus minutes before natural birth, where there is no risk to the mother’s life, no pain, and no bodily damage, I do **not** support abortion. At this stage, the fetus is effectively an independent life that could survive outside the womb, and terminating it would no longer align with the principles of bodily autonomy—it would instead shift into a moral question about ending a viable life unnecessarily. My stance emphasizes that the right to abortion is about protecting bodily autonomy and mitigating harm, not permitting arbitrary termination of viable life without cause.
So no, I do not. I believe that after the 24 weeks, a mother should carry the baby. (She would have no choice but to, because that's what the law states) And what she does with the baby after it's birth is her own decision. Keep it or give it up for adoption.
So what about for example Taiwan, China, Japan, Australia, Timbuktu, Nigeria, New Zealand, South Africa. Do they have the right to? Didn't think so, you clearly didn't think it through. Have a look at my username. xx
Well, no. I think aborting should be legal in two situations.
One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child.
In my opinion, and I think people would agree with me. Aborting a severly disabled and/or severly ill after the 24th week, causes less stress and mental damage than having the baby. Because for some parents it just isn't an option to raise a severly disabled or ill child.
And in some cases, the doctors tell the parents that their child will only be able to survive for let's say two years. I think they should also have the right to abort after the 24th week.
You can not abort a child after the 24th week of a pregnancy.
After that point, you will have to carry the baby until it is born. If there are dangerous circumstances during a pregnancy the doctors will try to safe both the childs and mothers life.
As the pro in this debate, I support abortion as a basic right but acknowledge that rights come with moral and ethical considerations. In the specific scenario of a viable fetus minutes before natural birth, where there is no risk to the mother’s life, no pain, and no bodily damage, I do **not** support abortion. At this stage, the fetus is effectively an independent life that could survive outside the womb, and terminating it would no longer align with the principles of bodily autonomy—it would instead shift into a moral question about ending a viable life unnecessarily. My stance emphasizes that the right to abortion is about protecting bodily autonomy and mitigating harm, not permitting arbitrary termination of viable life without cause.
So no, I do not. I believe that after the 24 weeks, a mother should carry the baby. (She would have no choice but to, because that's what the law states) And what she does with the baby after it's birth is her own decision. Keep it or give it up for adoption.