The government should not regulate abortion

You Posted:"You make a mistake by only addressing one part of this debate. At this point this is your position- a very small number of abortions occur after the 25-32 weeks so the government has the obligation to regulate abortions. Please stick to your original argument." One part is all I needed to address, you defeated your own position. If you concede that a child gains the right to life at a certain point in the womb then the government has an obligation to regulate abortions even if it is only to make the determination that in a life threatening situation the most viable life must be saved. However for the sake of debate I will address your other points. You posted:"The government cannot and never does legislate morality.:" This is an uninformed and naive statement. Animal cruelty laws are morality laws. Abolishing slavery ,civil rights,women's right to vote, charitable organizations being tax free,child protection laws, and a host of others are all moral laws. Take any of these laws away and anarchy would not ensue. You posted:"regulating abortion doesn't actually decrease the number of abortions that take place" Another naive statement. Of course some women would still have abortions anyway but this would be a criminal act. When an act is deemed illegal the instances that the act are committed generally decrease. This is because we live in a civilized society. The amount of doctors willing to perform legal abortions is shrinking so much that there has been a 50% decrease in abortion training in hospitals over the last 10 years. The number of doctors willing to train for or perform an illegal abortion would be minuscule. If you take into consideration that a woman would have to; A. Break the law. b. Have the procedure performed by an untrained person who is not a doctor. one can logically conclude that the number of abortions would decrease. Using statistics we can also conclude the same thing. The number of abortions performed in 1973 was 744,600. In 2000 the number was 1,313,000. That is an increase far beyond women population growth. We can conclude from this that legalizing abortion contributed to the number of abortions performed. Making the act illegal would have the opposite effect. You posted:" Finally- the issue of women's rights.:" This is actually the weakest point of your argument. I will address point by point to point out why. You posted:"Women should be involved in decisions that affect their lives and futures." In America this is true for everyone, to a point. I can decide that the best thing for my future is to have a lot of money. I can make the decision to increase my wealth by any means necessary, including illegal means. At the point where I rob a bank my right to be involved in my decisions that affect my life and future ends. Because I impeded the right of someone else. A baby is the only form of innocence that humanity ever knows, impeding upon the baby's right to life for the sake of what is best for the woman is the ultimate act of selfishness. You posted:"To refuse on principle to permit a woman to consider her life or welfare when it seems threatened by pregnancy is to say that only men are the recipients of political freedom and responsibility." Wrong, If a man kills a child in the womb by killing the mother he is usually charged with two murders. If a woman kills the child in her womb she is not charged with anything. It seems to me that the woman actually has more political fredom and responsibility. You posted:". According to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, discrimination against women includes laws that have either the effect or the purpose of preventing a woman from exercising any of her human rights or fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Laws that ban abortion have just that effect. Restricting abortion has the effect of denying women access to a procedure that may be necessary for their enjoyment of their right to health. Also you do not contest that allowing the government to intervene on personal decisions sets a dangerous precedent." Siting the Convention for abortion laws is akin to siting the kkk on civil liberties. They are not an unbiased source of information. As stated before the woman's rights to enjoyment and health end when they impede upon another's rights. This is the precedent of all of the laws in the USA. The government intervenes in personal decisions from investments to violence they are all set into motion by a personal decision.