Abortion

I would like to clarify something that I did not perhaps say clearly in Round 1. My post was merely an explanation of where I stand on this debate, and I posted my point of view so that my opponent could see exactly what I was arguing, and take his stance in accordance. I apologise if it was not clear enough. Back to the issue at hand. One cannot prefer a definition over another if it's a definition. It's like a fact, it is not subject to a person's point of view. Doctors do, in certain countries, abort in the third term. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions (see SOURCES for information on more countries). Therefore, one can say that doctors do abort even in third term pregnancies. At this stage, most fetuses are viable, and would feel pain. If they were to be therefore killed (my opponent himself asserts that at this stage they are granted personhood, so I shall not argue it), they would feel the pain of death. Not all women abort because it is absolutely necesary. If it wass absolutely necesary then I'd approve of it because it would be an unusual circumstance. I officially take the stance that abortion should be illegal/legal except for socioeconomic factors, rape, incest, health, mental health, fetal defects. Many women abort because they feel they don't want a child or because they feel they're not ready yet. The minority of abortions are in the unusual circumstances I have highlighted. I assure the audience (many may know from experience) that in most circumstances, a woman does indeed want an abortion, and never considers her fetus in making the decision. My opponent claims that over time, the number of teenagers getting pregnant has increased. The number of teenage pregnancies has decreased. It is continuing to decrease. Teenage pregnancies were normal in previous centuries. In the 1970s, as my opponent states, this rate was above 90 per 1000. In 2006, it was just over 70. The rate is clearly declining. The solution, in any event, wouldn't be abortion, it would be more education and better provision of contraception. The logic behind the abortion vs adoption argument seems bizarre. How could somebody prefer to kill a baby rather than put it up for adoption? I would thank my opponent to elaborate before I criticise. Women's rights, while important, are not as important as HUMAN rights. If there must be a choice between human and women's rights, then we must, unfortunately, opt for human rights. If we were to use the "woman's body" logic, then why should we have human rights or women's rights at all? Why should the government have laws? Why should there BE a government? No, if we were to use that logic, we'd fall into anarchy. Again, the back alley argument is also illogical. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder. It would happen anyway, because when it's illegal people do it in the dark and privately. This is unhealthy because it is done often painfully and without the proper equipment. We should therefore make it legal so that murder can be done properly with the proper equipment and so that it inflicts minimal pain on the victim. I stress, this is illogical. Disease would fall into unusual circumstances. It is within the scope of health or mental health. If the woman cannot genuinely take care of the child then she could cite socioeconomic factors for a review of her case, and be ruled for or against accordingly. I don't think that seems too unfair, do you? SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://blog.thenationalcampaign.org... . http://www.thinkinboutstuff.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...