There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed

My thanks to Pro for the opening arguments.ArgumentsTo consider whether abortion should be allowed we must consider what an abortion does and what are the ethical considerations involved.As Gregory Koukl stated, "If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate." [1]A zygote the beginning of a new human being. [2] From this stage onward a new human organism exists, one which we all had to pass through to arrive at our current level of development. So we are not debating the justification of creating or not creating a new human in various conditions. What we are debating is the whether or not a human being has a right to its own life dependent on the circumstances either she or her mother will face now or in the future.I posit that we live in a world that has come to realize the inherent and inalienable rights of humanity. This moral equality is the This was most famously penned in the US Declaration of Independence:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.One cannot pursue happiness if one does not have a right to liberty and one cannot have liberty if one does not have a right to life. And it is this right to life that is being dismissed if people accept that there are times in which abortion should be allowed.Thus, if the belief that there are inalienable human rights is true then it must be equally applied to all humans. If I do not murder an adult, or a toddler because of difficulties in life then it is hypocritical and immoral to do so to an unborn child for the same reason.What makes it easy to argue for the deaths of the unborn instead of the born is that they are faceless and voiceless to protect themselves. Even a newborn can be seen as being human and its cry for help be heard. The unborn being afforded no such interaction with the world are thus easy to dehumanize into objects with scientific terms like fetus and embryo. Thus the parents, and particularly the mother, are viewed as owning the child instead of being the natural guardian(s) of the child.Abortion is a procedure that unjustly takes the life of a human child.RebuttalPro's arguments are as follows:1) Humans interact with society. This provides positives for society. The positives for society are greater than the woman's right to choose.2) If a woman a raped, she will be reminded of the rapist when looking at the child. The child will grow up with unloving parents (if there are indeed 2 parents). Both mother and child will live terrible lives as a result.Neither of these arguments are based in any kind of moral reasoning, but mere supposition and appeals to emotion.Argument 1The first error in argument 1 is that aborting a baby is taking away a chance at a life...". It is taking a human life, not taking a chance at a life.Pro then continues to assume that our inherent value is contingent on our interaction with others. Now while it is true that our societal interactions can be positive for society, this belief would make it justifiable to kill hermits or the homeless who choose not to interact with others.Pro further states that this positive effect on society overrides the woman's right to choose. This is an absurd statement. One could argue that you should be able to have your kidney forcibly taken from you to help another person who is dying because this other person's interaction and interactions from his relieved family members will be a net positive to society. This is a clear violation of bodily rights would not be accepted as being just as it violates Natural Law. Your kidney is your kidney. Its function is to filter your blood for your good. Now just because it can be re-purposed to do something else does not make forcing you to do so moral, even if the end of such an action is a good thing.This whole argument is merely appealing to peoples emotions for a happy society.Argument 2This sounds good if one reduces women to simple 2 dimensional caricatures. Dr. Sandra Mahkorn has done to my knowledge the only study on women who were pregnant as a result of rape. She studied 37 victims, 28 chose to give birth, 5 chose to abort, 4 left the study. The study actually stated that women who abort actually suffer more than those who don't:“Because it is likely that the victim already harbors feelings of guilt as a result of the assault, medico – social pressures which encourage and result in abortion could compound the woman’s feelings of guilt and self blame [over the abortion itself]… Perhaps as a result of their own biases and an unwillingness to deal with the more emotionally difficult complications of a pregnant rape victim, many physicians suggest abortion in this case as one would prescribe aspirin for tension headache… While on the surface this “suggestion” may appear acceptable and even “humane” to many, the victim is dealt another disservice. Such condescending [”quick fix”] attitudes on the part of physicians, friends and family can only serve to reaffirm the sense of helplessness and vulnerability that was so violently conveyed in the act of sexual assault itself. At a time when she is struggling to regain her sense of self-esteem, such a “take charge” attitude can be especially damaging. Often the offer of such “quick and easy” solutions as abortion only serve those who are uncomfortable or unwilling to deal with the special problems and needs that such complications as pregnancy might present." [4]Her paper also stated that women made pregnant by rape did not abort and said that hostile and negative feelings towards the baby changed during pregnancy.One of the reasons for this was that the women sensed "that if they could get through the pregnancy they will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed she can nurture."Additionally, women have referred to abortions as medical rape.“The abortion itself was the worst part of the experience. I experienced it as a real violation, almost a rape... She had been raped before, so she does not make the analogy lightly.” [5]"...it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body." [6]The only actual studies performed on rape victims who have become pregnant shows that women recover better when they have the child than when they don't. What they really want is for people around them to be there and strengthen them. They don't want to be shamed by those close to them who just want the problem to go away and get back to their own lives while pretending it never happened.ConclusionI have clearly shown that abortion is impermissible based on human rights and that Pro's arguments are fallacious. Thank-you and I pass the debate back to Pro.Sources[1] Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7[2] Keith L. Moore. The Developing Human: Critically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA Saunders, 2003. pp. 2.[3] http://www.archives.gov...[4] Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.[5] http://clinicquotes.com... [6] http://afterabortion.org...