Abortion

Abortion is already illegal in the third trimester in many nations. It's far more usually to do with the baby having a severe hereditary disease rather than the mother simply saying 'screw it, I didn't want this baby'. http://www.drhern.com... As for the second trimester (and first) you are support to be against it in all trimesters as you are for the banning of it altogether so why on Earth you chose to raise a point specific to certain trimesters is beyond me and irrelevant to this debate as a whole.The bald eagle lays eggs, the egg can just as easily be removed from the eagle and taken care of in a veterinary care if not even better so. A fetus is vastly different as the mother's body literally gets diminished by it in order for it to survive to conception. Livebearing childbirth has both advantages and disadvantages to egg laying [http://animals.mom.me...] but one major advantage to egg laying is indeed the mother dying or leaving the young scenario being less hampering to the survival of the next generation.It says all men are created equal, not all women... You really want to play semantics with the Declaration of independence? It says men, not boys. It says men, not fetuses. It says created not fertilized or conceived. Please don't be so childish in debates as it can backfire severely. Playing semantics is a filthy tactic and never succeeds if multiple interpretations can be applied to something. Why is the mother's need for comfort inferior to the fetus' need for survival before it's even conscious? The Declaration of Independence is not clear on any of this and since it says 'men' it could mean that women are in fact created superior so thanks and bye with that ridiculous point.Firstly the reason you think they make up for less than 4% of abortions is that it's no always raised as a point in the abortion since it's legal to do it without any such reason. Would you feel the need to say 'I do this because I got raped" if you could just silently get it over and done with? Stop relying on useless survey results in order to prove something unrelated. It's not relevant how often they occur, it's relevant that you somehow see the need for ending the fetus' life being okay if the mother has been somewhat tortured mentally and/or physically either by rape or being told she has passed on a life-ruining disease or will die if she gives birth but cannot see that in many situations the mother is simply too poor to afford taking the time off work to bear the child let alone raising it if she doesn't feel comfortable giving up for adoption. This 'adoption' backdoor that abortionists use to escape any argument of the mother's financial state is ridiculous. If you had gone through 9 months of hell just to raise this fetus to a baby you may feel it was all a waste if you then give the baby away. There's so much you are forcing the mother to go through including weakening and mental deterioration slightly too which can hamper exams results by entire grades. Teenage pregnancies literally have been proven to lead to lower income for mothers and also are proven to increasingly occur in low income neighborhoods. If you expect barely educated poor women to then cope in life after having been knocked up either by being half-raped while drunk by some guy they barely knew or deserted by a not-so-horny-anymore boyfriend, then you're delusional. You are making the vulnerable more vulnerable and the weak weaker. It's no secret that slums in abortion-wary nations are always far worse off than those in abortion-accepting nations. The reasons are literally as simple as you think.http://www.healthywomen.org...http://www.healthcommunities.com... Compare these two sources against one another to see that abortion legalization is linked to higher Human Development within nations (hence less severe slums etc):http://worldabortionlaws.com...http://hdr.undp.org... You say that murdering innocent people is wrong but it's only murder if it is illegal to begin with. If you are murdering someone who is innocent, you are being cruel for no reason and breaking the law for no moral superlative. The entire supreme court morality rant was irrelevant to the debate entirely. I never said that it was the only source of morality so you cannot defend against it if I never attacked with it.You agree with abortion In certain cases and times in pregnancy yet cherry pick when you disagree with it for no explained reason. If you see it, ever, as justifiable to kill the fetus for the mother's sake, then you are agreeing that abortion can and should be legal in certain situations. You have yet to explain why your specific set of situations and time sin pregnancy make it okay to kill the innocent fetus while at others you disagree that it's okay.