Abortion is wrong!

Hey Kibbles, Under most circumstances, I would agree with you that an abortion is not the right measure to take. However, you have chosen to take the extreme and assert that there is no reason, whatsoever, that a child should be aborted. To your credit, if someone is negligent in their behavior, like having unprotected sex, than an abortion is an easy way out for an individual (at the expense of a child's life). But, abortion, like all behaviors, is acceptable when certain circumstances are involved. The abortion issue is a debate where two rights are in conflict with one another. The first right is the right to life, and the other being the right an individual (in this case, a woman) to choose. These rights are both very important in society, and those who choose right to life often cite that there is NO reason where abortion is an appropriate solution. Those who believe in a woman's right to choose above all will also note that most of them would never get an abortion, but that the option should be open. So, from here, I shall defend that there are times when an abortion is necessary. From an abstract view, there are at least two scenarios where an abortion is an acceptable alternative. The first one is in the incidence where a woman is raped. When a woman is raped, the power of a woman's right to choose has been stripped from her. It can be traumatic, and the emotional pain that follows the incident can be lasting. The only thing that could make the situation worse is if the rapist impregnated her (or gave her a disease, but let's ignore that part). What should she do? If abortion were completely illegal, she would be forced to deal with a child that was a product of the sex that she didn't choose to have. Even if she put the child up for adoption immediately, her ability to move on emotionally could be strongly hindered by the constant reminder of her child. This would be a case where a woman's right to choose was twice infringed. Allowing the option for abortion would at least give the victim some options on what to do in order to help herself move on, giving at least one MORE choice for her at the time when she's most vulnerable. This is not to say that all children of rape should be aborted, far from it. It's merely to acknowledge that when choice is preemptively taken from a woman, it is only fair to give it back in some way. It is the victim of the incident that needs to take priority over the rights of the unborn. Another incident where it should be acceptable to choose abortion is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. In some rare incidences, the unborn child can risk the life of the mother. Whether it be that the mother has a weak heart or other hormonal imbalance, or if the fetus is actually harming the parent, an abortion may be necessary to save the mother. This is a case where the right of one person to live conflicts with the rights of another to live... But, that conflict is kind of nullified when it's acknowledge that the child would have no chance to live if the mother died. There are preventative measures that could be taken if it's acknowledged that the mother could not handle a pregnancy early, but the option for abortion needs to be available if that need is not assessed early. Finally, it should be necessary to allow for an abortion if it can be determined that the child could be born with some debilitating illness that could cripple it's ability to live. If some illness could ultimately lead to a shortened, painful life for the child, an abortion could be considered as an act of mercy. Or, if some congenital illness could make the child simply incapable of handling some of the simplest of life's tasks, abortion should be considered as an option. There could obviously be extensive debate over what diseases would fall into this category, but I just wanted to acknowledge that this is a legitimate reason to consider abortion as an alternative.