Abortion should be legal up through the second trimester, regardless of circumstance

1B. My opponent's interpretation of the NEJM study is completely false. It seems that he elected to write his own summary of the eligibility requirements because a quotation would show that his rebuttal is grossly misleading:"Women who had undergone an induced abortion for nonmedical reasons and had subsequently become pregnant were eligible for the study. We excluded women who had had an abortion within 30 days after the diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy (on the assumption that the abortion was performed to treat the ectopic pregnancy) and women for whom the interval between the abortion and the subsequent pregnancy was less than 30 days. If a woman had had more than one abortion before the subsequent pregnancy, the abortion that was closest in time to the subsequent pregnancy was used for classifying the type of abortion (medical or surgical) and determining the interpregnancy interval. Women could enter the cohort more than once during the study period if they had more than one abortion followed by a pregnancy; this situation accounted for only 1.1% of eligible women."Firstly, the study had a good reason for excluding certain cases of ectopic pregnancies; in those cases, it was entirely possible the abortion was the result of the ectopic pregnancy, or vise versa. The records didn't provide enough information to adequately deduce what was true for each of these special cases. While this may seem like a short fall, I will explain why it is not in my next point.Secondly, my opponent states, "They exclude large groups of women to where only 1.1% remain. This allows for the study's data to be easily manipulated." If you've read the above quote from the study, you'll see the exact opposite. Only 1.1% were excluded. I'm willing to chalk this up to a simple mistake on my opponent's part, don't let it fool you. Only a small number of cases were excluded for the reason above.Lastly, my opponent states, "They excluded women who had more than one abortion." This is just simply false. The study's eligibility requirements even state their approach to categorizing women with multiple abortions. My opponent is mistakenly misinterpreting the study at best, and being intellectually dishonest at worst.In response to: "My source is a compilation of over 59 studies; while his study is faulty and only has one. I urge voters to hold this point in my favor."I will discuss this in 1C.1C. I had brought up the website's political bias (they state this in their "About Us" page; I also don't see how including images and footage of fetuses to trigger an emotional response is objective, which they claim to be) because the quote used by my opponent was cherry picked on a clear anti-abortion basis. They fail to mention that some of the 59 studies are as old as 50 years, which hurts the credibility of those claims. "59" is a big number that they threw out to mislead readers; many of those studies are too old to be relevant, considering that abortion procedures have become safer.Now, my opponent states that his source is reliable and I ignored its validity. His study is not readily available to view, unlike the sources I used. Whereas my opponent can easily see my studies and attempt to disprove them, I cannot do the same. I don't know whether or not to believe this source. All we have is a scant summary of a study making broad assertions, all penned by a biased source.In terms of the quality of my evidence, I went for quality over quantity.If my two were not enough to support my point, here is some additional reading:By the Australia Department of Health: https://www.health.wa.gov.au... (Go to Section #6: Risks of induced abortion>Effect on future reproduction)1D. The source cited by my opponent is confident that abortion leads to higher rates of breast cancer. They claim this, despite only 23 of 37 (61%, slightly more than half) world wide studies support the conclusion. The fact is, there very well may be a correlation between breast cancer and abortion. However, my opponent's biased source would lead you to believe it is an indisputable fact. This is not the case. In fact, here are two studies going against the claim:http://archinte.jamanetwork.com...http://jech.bmj.com...Mental Health:The entire passage my opponent posted is devoid of any statistics. It is all speculation by a previously established biased source. This information should not be trusted, as it lacks any evidence. I was able to find a recent longitudinal study that proved the opposite of justfacts.com's unsupported assessment.Closing statement:My opponent failed to adequately prove that abortion presents a clear danger to women, which was the grand majority of his arguement. I will concede that there is still much that is unknown, presenting a possible risk to a woman's health. However, the evidence seems to support the conclusion that modern abortion procedures are indeed safe, posing only minimal risk if any at all. Whether or not a women wants to take that slight risk, I'd say that's up to the women getting the abortion.I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate! This was a good one!