Abortion should be illegal

I'll begin by addressing your arguments, none of which are new to the "pro-life" side of the abortion debate.The first individual you quoted in your case was Dr. Jerome Lejeune of the University of Descartes. Dr. Lejeune was Catholic, and his religion had a heavy influence on his opposition to the practice of abortion. As much as I respect freedom of religion, in our society, church is to remain separate from state, and considering this is a legal debate, he is not a valid source.But if you would like to talk about Dr. Lejeune, we certainly can. He also firmly opposed in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and the usage of contraception. This avid dissident of the process of abortion was willing to refuse legislation of a bill that would have prohibited all forms of birth control, leaving no options for those who did not wish to have children (please do not propose abstinence because it is an unreasonable and unrealistic solution). Potentially, Lejeune's resistance to the use of contraceptives was due to his view of ova and sperm cells being sentient due to their capacity for life. An individual such as Lejeune who perceives gametes as being equal to fetuses, and fetuses as being equal to developed and self-sufficient humans, is not a credible or reasonable source for any debate, much less this one. Next, you talked at length about the various definitions of life and the various proposals of the time life begins. You seem to be confused as to the point at which this actually occurs, so for simplicity's sake I'll let you know that I believe life begins at conception. This is an objective, scientific fact. Technically there is life before conception, due to gametes' capacity to carry out the processes of life, however, we'll go by the definition that human life begins at fertilization.Humanity and personhood, however, concern two very different concepts. Humanity is the ability to be human - your genetic makeup that dictates you are a homo sapiens. Every individual with similar genetic makeup is considered human, or a member of our species. Personhood is more vague and has been debated for years. There was a time when women were not considered persons under the law, and various racial groups have seen the same around the world. Conversely, some non-humans have been named persons, such as Sandra the orangutan. Keep in mind, however, that at this point in time, in North America, fetuses are not considered persons under the law and therefore are subject to the rights of animals, for example, but not human rights*.*To clarify, the term "human rights" is rather a misnomer, and in this case I am using it to refer to rights we receive under the law and international documents due to the recognition of our personhood.I will explore the idea of personhood later in my case, but in the example of a mother and her unborn child, the only individual who may benefit from human rights is the mother. This needs to be acknowledged but is something you have skipped over. Secondly, you brought the topic of cancer into your argument by stating that a history of abortion increase's an individual's risk of breast cancer. Unfortunately, this is entirely irrelevant. Your proposal is that abortion should be illegal, not that it shouldn't be forced upon pregnant women. Anyone who consciously and voluntary subjects themselves to the procedure of abortion does so on the premise that it may lead to health complications in the future. It is the responsibility of the individual to become educated, and the job of society to educate, but the international legalization of abortions does not coerce anyone into partaking in a medical practice for which the consequences are personally undesirable. Your final contention regarded the life, health, and wellbeing of the mother carrying a fetus. This contention is underdeveloped, and if we explore it properly we find it holds no real value. There are many cases, such as that of an underage pregnancy, wherein someone is physically unable to carry a child. The scope of this debate is international, so let's look at the case of El Salvador. In 1998, the federal government implemented a law prohibiting abortions without exception. Since the law passed, unprofessional abortions have increased tenfold, a direct contradiction to your assertion that "The prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women." Not only are women in El Salvador seeking illegal means of abortion in acts of desperation, they are clearly unsatisfied with the medical care available to them. My case today centres around three contentions, all of which do relate to the information already presented. These contentions cover bodily autonomy, human rights, and the welfare of both child and mother.I. Bodily autonomyFirst, nearly all arguments made by individuals who identify strongly as "pro-life" revolve around the fetus' alleged rights to life but neglect entirely the rights of people who are pregnant and forced to carry pregnancies to full term. Bodily integrity (autonomy) is defined as the inviolability of an individual's body and the rights to health and security. Casting aside the fact that someone who finds themselves pregnant may be unwilling or unable to provide proper care to their unborn child, it is immoral, unethical, and illegal under most national law to force anyone to house another human within their body for up to nine months. Regions that prohibit abortion generally violate implemented laws considering bodily integrity. The toll that pregnancy and childbirth (natural or caesarean) takes on one's body is unreasonable to impose on anyone who has not consented to the condition of being pregnant. Physical demand during pregnancy, birthing, and recovery increases exponentially with twins and sets of multiple children. According to Dr. Dorothy Shaw, professor in obstretics and gynecology at the University of British Columbia, "There's a clear connection between countries that have a high fertility rate, where women are having six to seven children, and maternal mortality rates." Other complications arising from pregnancy include (not an extensive list by any means):Depletion of nutrients from the mother's body (e.g. Maternal Depletion Syndrome)Postpartum hemorrhageFailure of uterine muscle tissuePremature labour and birth complicationsIn the case of organ donation and transplant, bodily autonomy is integral. When we look at blood donors, no one is legally capable of giving a blood transfusion without previously having consented to it. Additionally, corpses are granted bodily autonomy in the realm of organ donation and transplant - if you don't agree to donate your organs while you are alive, they cannot be taken from you once you die. By prohibiting abortions entirely, you grant women who are pregnant, or have the potential to become pregnant, fewer rights than not only a fetus, but a corpse.II. Personhood vs. humanity (and the false hierarchy of rights)Secondly, when we return to the concept of personhood in contrast to humanity, we see a false hierarchy of rights. During the first trimester of pregnancy, a fetus, while scientifically classified as human, is little more than a cluster of cells carrying out basic life functions. The prioritization of these cells' perceived "rights" over the rights morally and legally granted to their mother is unethical and ought to be viewed societally as being absolutely unacceptable. Just as there are non-human persons, we have to acknowledge the presence of human non-persons, fetuses. While they are granted some rights as humans and sentient beings, their rights are inferior to those of persons under law, and it is a great stretch to consider them as even having equal rights. Their complete dependency on another human is a violation of that human's bodily integrity and by envisioning a fetus' rights as being remotely equivalent or superior to the rights of women who are both persons and humans, we completely demolish the value of a person and our collective concept of human rights. III. Welfare of the child and motherFinally, let's look at the welfare of the unborn child who, if forced to be carried to term, will likely see a poor quality of life throughout their upbringing. Abortion is not an easy decision to make, even when medically necessary, and often causes emotional discomfort to the individual choosing to abort. To proceed with such a process, there is generally solid reasoning behind the mother's decision (and if not, they likely weren't set up to be a great parent anyway). Abortion is not only humane to the mother in allowing her autonomy over her body, but oftentimes is humane to the fetus. Reasons for abortion may include:Rape/incestFailure/neglect of contraceptivesFinancial inability to raise a childPhysical inability to bear a childLack of familial support; full responsibility of raising a childPoor social status and lack of resources to provide to a childPrevention of the birth of a child with birth defectsMental illness/emotional stress caused to the motherAll of the above are valid reasons to abort a pregnancy, many of which are issues unsolvable through the process of adoption. By permitting abortion, we ensure better quality of life for the children who are born.It is here where I take issue with the term "PRO-LIFE." On top of your denial of bodily integrity to the pregnant mother, you now refuse to acknowledge the needs of a real child - it appears that you, along with other opponents of abortion, are significantly more "PRO-heartbeat-and-respiration" than you are "PRO-morality." While your intent is to protect the life of a breathing creature, you do more harm in the process through violating the rights and degrading the quality of life of both the mother and the potential child.