Abortion should be illegal in the United States

To end round 2 two of this debate, I would like to begin by refuting your argument. So lets begin. " There are Cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the mother" Argument 1 At first, your argument sounds reasonable. So abortions sound very necessary. But if you do a little bit more research you will find that this argument cannot stand. You stated that about 840 maternal deaths happen on a yearly basis as a result of pregnancy complications. This seams like a reasonably large amount of deaths that could be avoided if abortion is legal. With abortion though, the death rates of unborn children are astronomical. "Guttmacher reported 1,212,400 abortions in 2008. They reported an abortion rate of 22.4 per 100 pregnancies, and 9.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The Centers for Disease Control"s numbers, from 2009, report 784,507 abortions in that year. Keep in mind that the CDC is missing information from several states, including California, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Maryland, among others." [1] "January 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) " A new analysis from the National Right to Life Committee"s (NCLC) education department estimates that since the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, over 54.5 million American babies have died through abortion." [2] "But what it means is that there are over 3,300 abortions every day"137 per hour"or about one dead baby every thirty seconds." [2] Looking at these statistics, we find that about 1.2 million babies die each year because of abortion. If we illegalize abortion, about 840 lives will be lost each year; but if we legalize abortion, about 1.2 million lives will be lost. Argument 2 An abortion for a ectopic pregnancy isn't always necessary. Sometimes the ectopic pregnancy isn't life threatening, so an abortion for one would be killing the baby for no reason. "What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother"s life after all." [3] Argument 3 If the ectopic pregnancy can be fatal there is still no reason for abortion. To explain this I'll use the following quote: " We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title "pro-life" on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered "pro-life" at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying! When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother"s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother"s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother"s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother"s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical. Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease." [3] [1]http://www.lifenews.com... [2]http://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] http://www.prolifephysicians.org... ( By the way, adversaries needs an apostrophe, and you spelled ectopic incorrectly.)