Abortion

Ultimately, when potentially killing another life, I believe we should be erring on the side of caution although again, I believe this decision should be made by the majority of Americans (who are, by the way, women) through ballot referendum as to when life begins. The earliest recorded pregnancy is at 21 weeks, as previously stated.[1] That makes the 1.50% of the 1.21 million annual abortions murder as a bare minimum, 18,150 each year, because they occur after this point. An additional 3.8% of abortions, 45,980 each year, occur in the 16th-20th weeks, and are almost certainly murder as well, since they occur just prior to the point at which children can survive outside the womb.[2] Only 24% of Americans support abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy, so clearly the current fetal viability mark does not agree with the beliefs of most American, including most women.[3] As such, I argue that the current fetal viability limit of 24 weeks is far insufficient to ensure we are not committing murder, and needs to be restricted by vote per nationwide ballot referendum so that it is closer to the 12 week mark that 76% of Americans recognize is the appropriate setting. Pro questions why I would support abortion when there is a very high percentage chance of death for the infant. My reasoning is that in such a case, Pro's earlier reasoning applies that to have the pregnancy will almost certainly result in suffering, illness, misery and ultimately death for the child; having a pregnancy only to watch the child die. In such a case allowing the child to be born causes additional suffering not only for the child, but for the family who must undergo what will almost certainly be death for the child. Furthermore, it removes the risk of pregnancy for a woman whose child is virtually guaranteed of death, should she so choose. For all of these reasons, I support allowing abortion in cases where a congenital anomaly is very likely to result in death. Pro argues that "Con wishes to clarify that she [sic] supports abortion in the case of extreme anomalies which does not include dwarfism, diabetes, or a minor handicap for example. It should be only used when the subject in hand is clearly diagnosed with a malformation that condemns him to a hard life as described in previous rounds." However, what defines a "hard life"? How do you decide what disabilities constitute a hard life, where do you draw the boundary? How do you guarantee such a definition won't be expanded indefinitely to encompass all disabilities, as I've suggested? After all, anyone wishing to have an abortion will certainly argue before the courts that abortion should be allowed in their specific case, whether of depression, dwarfism, or whatever else. I believe the correct way to determine this is by polling the disabled to see whether they think their lives are too hard and wish they hadn't been born. Because such polling does not currently exist to my knowledge, we simply cannot presume which disabilities are so great that those thus inflicted do not wish to be born. Rather than assuming what they think to determine whether or not they live or die, I feel we should ask them instead. Only if a majority of a specific disabled group says they wish they hadn't been born should we consider that disability a reasonable justification for abortion. Sources: [1] http://healthland.time.com... [2] http://www.guttmacher.org... [3] http://www.gallup.com...