Abortion

It's been a great experience for both of us. I will begin my last argument by answering your last question, namely how can abortion be right. I would first like to point out, that I did in fact research both sides of the "story". The main and perhaps only meaningful argument by the pro-life side is the right to life. Agreed, noone has the right to take someone's life away. But this only applies once the human being is born, this is also the reason behind why we register people only once they've been born and not when a woman is pregnant. The embryo/fetus is a nonindependent organism, if the woman's body dies or halts to supply it with nutrients, it will die. But if the embryo/fetus dies, the woman does not. Since we all have the right to do what we want to with our bodies, we should also be allowed to dump the embryo/fetus. You can cut off your leg, if you want to, the unborn child is different only in that it's another body, but it cannot survive on its own. Now let's jog to the Con's responses and counter-arguments. The brain-dead person is no longer alive, they have no brain. They are alive, because their brain stem still controls the basic functions in their body and their body obviously works. But since the rest of the brain is dead, they are not even capable of thinking. By the time the baby is born, it's brain will have over 100 billion neurons. So what? Whales and elephants have bigger brains and consequently more neurons, but aren't any smarter than a squirrel. Even when someone is born, he is not conscious, it is quickly gained afterwards in very early childhood. A beautiful magpie is smarter than a newborn human and the only non-mammal to self-recognise in the mirror, which is a sign of conscience. Handicapped children are often happy, always precious, and usually delighted to be alive. Con fails to see the big picture and is only focused on the few examples he's known of, while not acknowledging the statistics. I in no way disdain handicapped people, especially because of my egalitarian world views. But people with defects won't be able to live the same good life in the same way as we do, it's not fair to them. Most of them, there are exceptions but we've to focus on the majority, don't live the good life and are a financial burden to society. Suicide rates of people, who've become disabled later in life are actually much higher that those of lucky people. Many handicapped people are also incapable of properly perceiving their environment and therefore are not capable of committing suicide. You stated that children are financial burdens and that large families are bad. I honestly take a little bit of offense at this. I am the 3rd of 8 children in my family. So what? Con fails to see the big picture and is only focused on his own experience. Statistically bigger families are worse off and poorer people have a tendency of having big families. It's due to economic reasons. There are always exceptions and deviations, but demographics clearly indicate greater families and higher birth rates under poorer people. Poorer people have more abortions simply because they are more reproductive and have lesser access and information in regards to contraception. I found 2 great arguments on this field: Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome. The obvious answer, so the woman won't have to sacrifice is to simply give the child up for adoption. In a sarcastic tone, this is the easiest and most moral possible thing to do! Giving a child up for adoption is very rare, due to pressures from society and due to natural, but powerful maternal instincts. Most people simply won't pick this option as statistics have shown us. One and a half million American families want to adopt a child, although laws very from state to state and I'm not very familiar with the federal situation, as far as I know adoption-laws in Minnesota there are very strict regulations and the adoption process is very, but very long. In fact the America's adoption agency strongly recommends using attorneys, when adopting a child. Punitive, but necessary regulations take a lot of time and this is the capital reason behind why so many children are left in orphanages. Not just "normal" babies are wanted-many people request babies with Down syndrome, and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida, again Con focused on one exceptionally positive story and not on the big picture. Children with disabilities are not nearly as requested as "normal" ones, according to charts provided by the American adoption agency. The Cons response to my argument regarding the safety of abortion was again flawed as Con failed to see the big picture. Since 1973, when abortions have been legalised in the US, only 400 women died because of it. Every medical procedure carries some risk, but abortions are by far the safest. As said only 400 women died because of abortions, while 59 million have been performed since 1973. The fatality rate is even lower in Canada and in the EU. I know only about the abortion laws in Minnesota and Germany and in both states, doctors are obligated to provide information regarding the risks associated with abortion, as written in: Minnesota Statutes section 145.4241 - 145.4249 [Woman's Right to Know Act] & § 24b - Schwangerschaftsabbruch- und Sterilisationsgesetz I was surprised that Con did not comment on my argumentation regarding the biological dependency of the embryo/fetus on the mother and on the application of the right to do whatever you want to do to your body, which is the backbone of pro-choice movements and current law in most developed countries. I would like to apologise for forgetting to post my sources. Here they are: (1). https://www.thoughtco.com...(2)https://en.wikipedia.org...(3)http://www.independent.co.uk...(4)http://www.lifenews.com...(5)http://www.health.state.mn.us...(6)https://dejure.org...(7)https://www.scientificamerican.com...(8)https://en.wikipedia.org...