Abortion

Response to Point 1: "By 1972, the year before the Roe v. Wade decision, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal or self-induced abortions.": http://www.straightdope.com.... Yes, few women were reported to have died from illegal abortions the last full year before Roe vs. Wade. But the key word there is "reported". Hundreds or thousands of deaths could have gone undocumented even in 1972. Why? Because having an abortion was still not something that people told everyone becuase abortion was still considered immoral by the vast majority of the population (Kind of like gays today). As a result, thousands of women who had abortions did not tell anyone because it would tarnish their reputation forever. So as a result, thousands if not tens of thousands of women went to doctors who would not put the information on the women's abortion on file, unlike a hospital, even several years after Roe vs. Wade. This of course, is illegal. But as abortion became more accepted and widespread, women shifted from these "underground" doctors to hospitals. This is a shot to the whole pro-life argument because if they didn't protest abortion, abortion would not be scrutinized, and women would not seek "underground" doctors. Since their wasn't really a major crackdown of these "underground" aborters prior to Roe vs. Wade, thousands could have gone undocumented. And once the family learned of the woman's death from an abortion, the family usually hid it, for as the same reasons above, it was illegal and immoral and would tarnish the family name. So these fake doctors. Are they going to get documented? No. That is the whole point of doing something underground. So it would not be documented. It would take police to find out about the abortion, then to document it on case files. This rarely happens. Plus, the statistics you requested to not exist. Response to Point 2: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...; Read this and debate it if you want. But there will be plenty to debate in the other articles. Here are the effects on abortion and crime: "One of the four major factors that decreased crime in the 1990s was abortion: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births." :http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...... "These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... There are so many great passages on this website to list all here. To have a better understanding of what this article is saying, read the article from the bottom of page 19 to the top of page 21. Also, look at the graphs throughout the article. Here is the article again: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu....... And no, I can not prove the prohibiting abortion would just increase crime and poverty in the United States, but I can prove the legalizing abortion has decreased crime." Here are the effects of children receiving welfare: "When past and estimated future receipts of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is 13 years.": http://www.heritage.org.... This quote points to the fact that if a child is on welfare, the child is likely to be on welfare for over half his or her childhood. This suggests that your claim that having children will increase welfare in fact is wrong. Why? Because if they are on welfare, they are likely very poor, and the child will have a bad childhood, and most likely, and bad rest of his life. "Triples the level of behavioral and emotional problems among children; Nearly triples the level of teen sexual activity; Doubles the probability a young woman will have children out of wedlock; and, Doubles the probability a boy will become a threat to society, engage in criminal activity, and wind up in jail.": http://www.heritage.org.... Not to mention, abortion most certainly increases poverty. If you are single with 3 kids and in poverty, and you end up pregnant, and are denied an abortion, that is another person in poverty. Response to Point 3: The law is that abortion is legal. My point was that women have the right to terminate pregnancies that they do not want. It is not the Government's place to take away that right or to enforce moral behavior through the law. Response to Point 4: One, your source's website name is pro-life. So voters, please immediately discredit the source as having bias. Two, one of the whole arguments of abortion is when a fetus is considered a human. Pro-Life people usually either say at conception or at some very early milestone. Pro-Choice and everyone else have a variety of different beliefs and thoughts on when a fetus is considered a human. The belief that life begins at conception is not a fact, and is one of the main subjects of this debate. Because if life does not begin at conception, but at some other date of pregnancy, than abortion before that date is not murder. "Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A fetus resides in a legal and social no-man's land, where rights and personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women.": http://www.abortionaccess.info.... This quote sums it up. The matter of when a fetus is a human is subjective, and will likely never be proven scientifically. But legally, and fetus should not be considered a human with rights. And it is not for us to decide whether a pregnant woman can have an abortion or not. That should be her own decision. We should have no say in an individual's choices, and should stay out of their business. Defense FU Point 1: Since here, I proved the most likely, the question of when a fetus is a human will probably never be proven using a scientific study, so we must look at the legal aspect, and the legal aspect says no. To save us from drawn out, character wasting link wars, the aspect of when a fetus feels pain is only one side of the when a fetus is a human debate. That is one opinion. We could debate or prove when a fetus has a heartbeat, or when it starts breathing, or when it can survive outside the mother's womb, or even at conception. So when a fetus feels pain is only one (but most important) side of the when a fetus feels pain debate. I want to see how you will handle this issue.