Is abortion bad

Thank you Con (Pro?)REBUTTALR1'abortion can not only kill the baby'Whoa, whoa. Hold up. There is no baby here that we are talking about. The correct term is foetus.'but may cause future medical problems' Okay. I think it's very important that the reader of this debate understand the website that this claim comes from. This website is www.afterabortion.org.This website describes itself as 'More Than 25 Years of Pro-Woman/Pro-Life Leadership'. This is highly unlikely to be unbiased, and a reliable source. However, it does raise a valid concern- it references a Swedish study in 1997 which supposedly showed a higher death rate for abortion [1] - Gissler et al. I found this study [2].Here are a couple of problems with it.1.) Of 9,192 women of all 'fertile aged women' (whatever that means), only 281 of them actually were pregnant during their last year of life. This is a very small sample size and as such is not very good to back up such a sweeping statement as 'abortion kills' (made by the website)2.)According to the website mentioned in Con's (Pro's?) argument 'Approximately 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth (2%) were considered major.' All right. so we take that, and we apply it to our 281. We get 5.62, which we can round up to six. In the whole of Finland, six died from (possibly)abortion-based complications.3.)Six. This is categorically not enough to make the statement 'abortion kills mothers'4.) And as the study (quite rightly) admits 'The current official classification of maternal deaths as indirect, direct and fortuitous is arbitrary'5.)The point of this study was only to look at the classification of maternal deaths, NOT to look at abortion in any way6.)The study, again says 'The classification of other than direct maternal deaths was ambiguous', meaning the assertion of abortion leads to suicide by this website BY ITS OWN EVIDENCE is disprovenNOTE: The study in question is a good piece of scientific work, and I am not attempting to 'diss' or otherwise demean its methodology, simply that the argument made by the website is invalid.R2Ohhkay. First things first, www.jillstanek.com is run by (suprise) 'Jill Stanek [who is] a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.'Again, not a unbiased source.This is actually a good learning opportunity. This is a perfect example of the fallacy of authority- assuming something must be correct because it is said by an authority figure (in this case the Pope). It is not, there is no other evidence that 'abortion promotes a culture in witch human life is disposable'R3Sigh. Again, abort73.com is not a unbiased etc etcThis is the Hippocratic Oath, as reproduced by the webpage (here for amusement purposes)I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.'I'd like to know just why the website thinks that the original version is in any way 'better' than the modern version, which is now taken by all doctors.The modern version [3] contains the phrase ' But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.', which you may find personally pertinent. However, as I stated above, this is not a life that we are 'taking', and Con (pro?) has failed to refute this point.R4Why?This is the same as plagarism, so I am going to disregard it and I would encourage the reader to do the same.R5No source, and so can also be disregarded.My arguments currently stand, extend. If Con(Pro) does not rebut them next round this debate should be considered an autowin for me.1.)http://afterabortion.org...;2.) http://www.tandfonline.com...3.)http://www.imaapstate.com...;