Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm.

a) Fetal Personhood >a sperm destined for an egg, uninterrupted, would likely fertilize that egg and eventually become sentient. [Edit: Grammar] There is a difference here. The sun's rays allow people to survive, so since the rays would hit the earth unless interrupted, it is illegal to stop them. However, the sperm in this case are competing for a common resource they would all need to become sentient (ex: people competing for food) and don't automatically have the right to it in the way that people do with the sun's rays. In one case something is naturally developing whereas in the other one a sperm is actively taking a resource for itself. There's a difference between 'a coma patient would naturally develop sentience' vs. 'uninterrupted, a robber would naturally steal medicine from a hospital, allowing them to continue their sentience by extending their lifespan'. The first is utilizing their own resources while the second is utilizing a common resource. In other words, since the sperm all depend on fertilizing the egg in order to become sentient, it's not immoral for them to fertilize it. If a bunch of starving people each need food, it's not immoral for one of them to take it, since they all need it. If there is excess food and one person hoards it all to themselves, it is immoral. It wouldn't really matter if what the sperm are doing is 'moral', since in this example they aren't sentient (yet) but still have the rights of babies. They aren't responsible but still have moral value. However, what is your definition of when moral value begins? (Flowers are "alive," so "when life begins" might not be the exact issue here. "Person" also has many definitions and doesn't necessarily correlate to moral value.) b) Bodily Autonomy >This is simply a fallacious analogy. It immediately breaks down because there are many cases where a birth will kill the mother if the baby is not aborted, without collateral damage such as the entirety of New York City. Pro provides no reason that bodily autonomy would break down other than in cases which would kill the mother unless an abortion takes place. Pro also notes the scale of the difference (one person vs. New York). However, it's the principle of the matter that counts, so for the sake of agreement, let's say the bomb will blow up one person. >if the terrorist, as terrorists often do, forced his or her way into the space station and used violence to place this bomb in Joe's hand, surely it would not be fair to force him to die over this. I'm not sure what Joe's hand has to do with this, but I already said the terrorist forcefully attaches the bomb to Joe's door. Pro says that the example would be applicable if Joe invited the terrorist into his house, which would mean women could not get an abortion in cases where they consent to sex. In fact, Pro has only defended bodily autonomy in the case of rape where it means either the mother or the fetus will die. Perhaps he (or she) feels confident in their defense of personhood, of which they provide no definition. >It would not be fair to force him to die over this And it would not be fair to force someone to get blown up when they have 0 responsibility in the matter. I'm pretty sure it would be illegal for Joe to open his door if he knew it would blow someone up. But Pro insists that this wouldn't be fair if Pro would die otherwise (a sort of 'ends justify the means') philosophy. The problem is that the ends and the means are exactly the same. (One person dying vs. one person dying.) It simply isn't ethical to kill someone else in order to save yourself. So even if Joe was having an asthma attack and his inhaler is right past that door, he can't kill someone to do it. Saying Joe is allowed to do this is basically saying it's fine to allow terrorists to set up bomb triggers on your property and then set them off yourself, so long as the reason you're killing someone is to save your life. c) Harm vs. Good >The first sentence of this argument is straight up beggining the question and presupposing your conclusion as your premise and, thus, must be disregarded. I said 'if abortion is as bad as infanticide, and infanticide results in a net loss, then so will abortion'. Please tell me how that was 'begging the question'. >Compared to states that support women"s health, those states that oppose safe and legal abortion spend far less money per child on a range of services such as foster care, education, welfare, and the adoption of children who have physical and mental disabilities So they're saving money? Isn't that a good thing? It could also be that conservatives tend to oppose abortion and also tend to spend less on social programs. This really has nothing to do with whether abortion is allowed though. >The states that have the strongest laws against safe and legal abortion are also the states in which women suffer from lower levels of education and higher levels of poverty, as well as from a lower ratio of female-to-male earnings. They also have a lower percentage of women in the legislature and fewer mandates requiring insurance providers to cover minimum hospital stays after childbirth Again, conservatives spend less on handouts. [3] You say women have less education, spend less time in the legislature, but that would be expected if they were stay at home mothers. And why would they be stay at home mothers? Possibly, because these states have high marriage rates, meaning more stable families. (Utah for example.) [1] >Following the legalization of abortion, the largest decline in birth rates were seen among women for whom the health and social consequences of unintended childbearing are the greatest " women over 35, teenagers, and unmarried women (Levine et al., 1999). Today, 26 percent of the abortions in the U.S. are provided to women over 35 and to teenagers (CDC, 2014). Yes, abortion lowered birth rates. Imagine that. I frankly don't see how your last two points are relevant to an argument. You argue that abortion only endangers the lives of 5/1000 women and that it decreased. You also say that Guttmacher Institute considered abortions to be safe 4 years ago. I will happily give you those points. (Although maternal death from giving birth is .0264%, a lower rate than what you provided for abortion complications.) [2] So in summary, I don't see how lowering poverty is any excuse for killing people. Works Cited: 1. Graham, Jennifer. "Behind the Numbers: How to Make Sense of Utah's Abortion Rate for Married Women." DeseretNews.com, Deseret News, 14 June 2017, www.deseretnews.com/article/865681905/Behind-the-numbers-How-to-make-sense-of-Utahs-abortion-rate-for-married-women.html. 2. Martin, ProPublica Nina, and Renee Montagne. "U.S. Has The Worst Rate Of Maternal Deaths In The Developed World." NPR, NPR, 12 May 2017, www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world. 3. Zelizer, Julian E. "Blowing Up the Deficit Is Part of the Plan." The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 19 Dec. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/blowing-up-the-deficit-is-part-of-the-plan/548720/.