No woman should be required to carry a baby to term. That is why Roe vs. Wade was passed. Too many women who did not want to have babies were having unsafe abortions and dying.
Women have a right to control their bodies. If they don't want to have the baby, that is their right.
For many reasons but there are more reasons than the woman's body will die or suffer if they don't have an abortion... Because there are cases in which the woman will die if she does have the child just simply for the fact that her body can't take it. But there is also the fact that abused women will also have more unintended pregnancies and those unintended pregnancies give the abusers more room for the amount of violence that they have already done to the woman, on purpose, when you rape someone for example its about power and control, not because of desire but because they can and pregnancies if not more so will happen more often in a violent relationship such as above. When anti choice people state (and not related to this question) but when they state that they are against abortion for that same reason its like making the victim have a baby against their will is doing the abusers job for him ... Or her... I think its cruel and unkind. I think though, it is ONLY unkind because studies have proven that the majority of abortions are linked to domestic violence in some way or form.
If you look up "study found domestic abuse linked to abortion" and I say this to anyone who does oppose me which is your right to what you want to support, but do the research and then base an opinion off your own findings. I looked it up and have done research over the past years and since nearly 2007 its been stated domestic violence is one of the major factors that is linked to abortions aside from the person's mental state as well.
By what standards are we using 'may suffer if they don't abort'? Purely physical pain and damage, including potentially fatal injuries? Emotional trauma, such as those impregnated via rape? Economic/social instability and hardship, such as a lower class family with too many monetary problems as is? By definition, potential for suffering, on some level, is the only real reason people have abortions. With a broad enough definition of suffering, the answer is no, because the only people who genuinely don't suffer in any way, aside from the physical pain of giving birth, are mature adults who are in a happy, stable long term relationship with a loving partner, and only then if the pregnancy is planned and everything prepared ahead of time. Of course, if we're going by purely physical pain and injuries, including potentially a threat to the life of the mother, then the answer is yes, yes they do, for the same reasons as listed above. A purely physical definition of suffering is simplistic and childish, especially with regards to such a complex and life changing event as giving birth to a child.
No woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Pregnancy causes horrid, irreversible damage to a woman's body. Unwanted children lock people into a downward spiral to poverty. People waste their lives when forced into giving birth. Educations are ruined dreams are shattered by unwanted children. We as a society are much better with abortion.
I'm assuming you're using the word, "suffering," in the physical sense. Consider that all the unintended pregnancies that happen in the U.S. Children--and I'm talking nine-year-olds here--are not always properly educated. Even with school preaching all these meaningless words to them, can we really expect them to take it seriously? They might have the children without any physical problems (except having to have a C-section, of course, but I'm not quite sure that counts), but they would most certainly suffer. And also, their child, when born, could very well be suffering even more than them. Imagine not knowing who your father was, and your mother not old enough to raise you properly. True, there would certainly be relatives, or at least some kind of help from the state; to my knowledge, humanity isn't quite so far gone yet that the child who failed to heed warnings (or didn't receive them in the first place) would be abandoned due to lack of relatives. However, what, in all, can they really do to help? They can take the child from her. I don't believe it's any better to have a child (who is PROVEN to be conscious) and ruin it's life by taking it's mother away than to simply take it's life before it's old enough to care. Also, remember that the mother doesn't necessarily want to give away their child, even if they should.
Aside from child births, there are many other cases where you would be ruining two lives instead of taking one (and one that might, for all we know, not even realize it's being taken). Unintentional births cannot always be prevented by birth control. Most all of the non-permanent forms of birth control have a good 5-10% chance of failure. And then there's the chance the person will mess something up and accidentally use the birth control in a way it will not be effective. Human error, people. If it were you with a pregnancy here, with, possibly, no way to support the young one coming, would you be thinking, "Oh, I'll do my best, because I'm sure this child will be so much happier if I don't end it's suffering before it starts..." I don't think there are many people who would want to be the young child OR the parent. Growing up without a father, and possibly in a family that relies only on state benefits to support you? Besides, they might--in fact, this is quite likely--end up in a foster home. From personal experience, I KNOW that's not fun.
And, although I can't prove or support this with much evidence, I don't believe a family where the mother and father didn't want the child in the first place would be the happiest one. Sure, some will still love the child, but you can't trust every human on the planet to be, well, humane. There's enough child abuse already and, in my opinion, we don't need to add to it by outlawing abortion.
I shouldn't have to argue this, but I will. I don't think anyone has the right to take away another's life. If you don't believe in the death penalty, then you shouldn't believe in abortion either. I don't find there to be a good enough excuse to abort a baby. I think the whole thing is a mother being selfish, and not wanting something to supposedly ruin her life. I don't think that makes it fair to ruin a potential life though. When it is that size I don't think an abortion is right. Using abortion as birth control is disturbing and horrific! If you don't want a baby then use birth control and etc...But don't just get away with doing whatever and think you are not going to get pregnant by doing it. I know different people who are unprotected and they get pregnant...That's what is called a consequence. If you speed...You can expect at some point to get a ticket. Like being unprotected you can expect a baby. That isn't rocket science.
I get that some women may need an abortion because of complications in labor or something like that , where there is risk to the mother's life. I'm ok with that. The majority of the time I'm ok with abortion in the case of rape, but using abortion as birth control, is wrong, especially at a stage when the child is developed enough to be able to live outside the womb. Besides, proper birth control is much cheaper than an abortion. So can someone please explain to me why anyone needs an abortion besides the fact that they're just trying to get rid of what they see as a burden?