Abortion should be legal.

Thank you for starting this debate libertarian. I agree you have some points but I will show you some facts. The rebuttals: +++ It is true that abortion has some harmful effects but the chance of these effects are extremely unlikely. The two most common effects are bleeding and psychological, but these two effects are common with every surgery. Wrong! Women who undergo abortion face a number of possible physical complications including hemorrhaging that requires a transfusion, perforation of the uterus, cardiac arrest, endotoxic shock, major unintended surgery, infection resulting in hospitalization, convulsions, undiagnosed ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, cervical laceration, uterine rupture and death. And look at this! The risk of breast cancer for women who have experienced an induced abortion is 50 percent higher than among other women. A woman's body naturally produces a rapid cell growth in the breast tissues during pregnancy. This growth shuts down after giving birth. Abortion, however, does not shut down this rapid cell growth, resulting in a significantly higher risk for breast cancer. +++ Abortion can be used for health benefits. Often, having the baby will kill the mother or the pregnancy can be detrimental to the mother's health. Isn't this fact a risk for every pregnancy? Are you now saying we shouldn't have children? Are you willing to let a person die when you know you can save the life in advance? I find this sentence VERY IRONIC! Why would you bring a new life into the world at the known expense of one who has a husband, mother, friends and is probably already a mother. Not EVERYONE who gets an abortion is a mother with families. A LOT of teens get pregnant and get an abortion. Would you let your mother die in order to have a smaller brother who you don't even know? No. It is immoral for the government or any entity to force a woman to die for the sake of an embryo that does not even have thoughts, feeling and certainly not loved ones. You seem to be ignoring the fact that she can give it up for adoption. And dying is a risk she'll take with or without an abortion. She will not necessarily die because she gives birth but the child WILL. +++ A teenage mother will ruin her life if she has a baby, It will be very difficult for her to keep her grades up and do well in life. Statistically, teenage mothers are not as successful. This is an overwhelming statistic. It is immoral to force a girl to ruin her life like this. Again you ignore the fact that she can give it up for adoption. My cousin had to go through this. She gave up the baby for adoption after she gave birth. The baby is doing fine. She checks up on it all the time. Plus this is why abortion should be illegal in the first place. Teens will think twice before getting pregnant. +++ I do not believe that prostitution is at an all time high. Prostitution was the social norm trough the 1920s. Please show some proof. I couldn't find enough evidence to support either of our arguments. I misread a different article. Sorry! However I do not see proof for your argument. +++ Prostitution is not a harmful crime. The legalization of prostitution would be more beneficial. What! How do you rationalize this? Prostitution often means cheating on your wife or girlfriend and it spreads diseases! +++ There is no relation between abortions and prostitution. Prostitutes will simply demand the use of condoms or use birth control. Your link is non-existent. No, my link is right here. www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/prostitutionfacts.html Basically, it's talking about statistics with prostitutes being raped. +++ A fetus does not have feelings until 26 weeks. It is impossible for a fetus to think until this time as well. It is not a person. The mother, however, is. This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA? This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference? Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature? At what point does it become human and by what criteria do you make this judgment? If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person. +++ This is ridiculous. If you are going to argue that it is a woman's consequence and choice for having sex to have a baby, then you must accept that it is a woman's consequence and choice to decide for herself if she wants to deal with a baby or death from having a baby or if she wants to deal with anxiety. Look at this link. http://www.abortionfacts.com...? It talks about suicide rates among teens. There is more about psychological and physical effects on that site. +++ This is not what is happening to the baby. The baby does not have thoughts or feelings. And think of the poor mother. Are you going to force her to have a baby that could have resulted from rape or could potentially kill her? Is that morality to you? Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense and his life need not be taken because of the act of another. If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong. +++ No. If you asked the EMBRYO it would not say, think or feel anything. The mother would probably say, if asked, that she wants a future, however. My argument above would suffice for this one. And yet again you fail to ignore the fact that she can give it up for adoption. +++ Well, I'm not using the sexist argument. Although it is legitimate. Women are not child bearing receptacles. They are human beings with rights. Did I say they weren't? "Men aren't solely deciding the GOVERNMENT is. Last time I checked the government consisted of both men AND women. And yes there are woman who do not agree with abortion!" You fail to pose an argument against this. 1.The government does not, and should not have the right to control a woman's body. The founding fathers included 22 ways the government should be restricted. They used the word "not" in context of the government 22 times. They do not want the government controlling our bodies. Yet isn't the child a "body." The government would be controlling the child's body in this instance. 2."Back alley" abortions were very common in times when abortion was legal. These abortions included women sticking hangars into their bodies to kill their fetuses. This will continue if abortion is criminalized. These links should argue my point for this one. They give statistics on back alley abortions. www.priestsforlife.org/lte/lte27.html www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2688&pst=64853 www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn62.htm 3. A child that is unwanted will be neglected. GOD wants mothers to want their babies. GOD sticks these soon-to-be people in their bodies for nine months and cause much damage and stress. This causes mothers to love their babies so much more. He also makes them half of us. If you do not love your baby, God does not want you to have it. Ah, using my Christian faith against me I see. Yes it is true God wants mothers to take care of their babies. However this violates God's rule of freewill. A mother cannot be forced to love her child. Some mothers just aren't fit to take care of children so they give them up for adoption. And again most children in America aren't unwanted. There's established adoption clinics for the purpose of unwanted pregnancies alone and the parents gladly receive them with open arms. Please look at the comment section below!