Abortion should be legal

I concur with the observations of this debate that Pro mentioned, although I dispute the assertion that abortions are sometimes necessary for the mental well-being of pregnant individuals. I must also note that the resolution does not require me to defend its legality in the special circumstances Pro outlined; rather, I must defend bans only the cases that are pertinent to the resolution =Con’s Case=1. Abortion unjustly takes lifeThe central premise of my case is that abortions violate the right to live that Pro and I can agree exists to an extent. I aim to show that humanity extends to the unborn as well as the born, and that beyond the moment of conception, there is no valid criteria by which to dictate that the unborn is less human than those who are born. Thus follows my syllogism: P1. Living humans are members of the human community.P2. Living humans come into being at the moment of conception.P3. It is prima facie morally wrong to end the life of an innocent member of the human community.P4. Every successful abortions end the life of an innocent member of the human community.C. Every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.The first premise is a given: certainly, if one is alive, they are an indisputable member of the human community regardless of whether or not they possess all the same characteristics as other members of that community do. The second premise is one that is evident upon examination of a zygote’s nature: the first single cell, from the very initiation of existence, contains the full genetic blueprint that a human being will ever need. Their sex, hair and eye color, height, and skin tone are all immediately present in the genetic code. While the physical development of these characteristics occur later on, the complete instructions already exist. The scientific consensus on this is sound. Found in Patten’s textbook, Human Embryology, we read: “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual” [1][2]. In Encyclopedia Britannica, we find the following: “A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg” [1][3]. Internationally-acknowledged geneticists and biologists agree, such as Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School, asserting “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception” [1]. Dr. Landrum Shettles, known as the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization, stated: “To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.” [1].Simply put, there is no sound reason by which to assert that such an entity, with its own unique genetic code, does not meet the criteria of membership in the human community. The lack of physical development is clearly not a valid parameter, as development is a continuous process that doesn’t end until long after birth. Neither is the residence of a fetus -- the womb -- sufficient reason to see such an entity as having a lower status than of that which is outside it. A car is just as much a car whether or not it is inside a garage.The third and fourth premises should follow intuitively: ending the life of a member of the human community prima facie, especially an unequivocally innocent one’s, is morally objectionable. From there we deduce that, because successful abortions do exactly this, they are prima facie just as morally objectionable as the homicide of a born person would be.2. Psychological DamageAn oft-ignored consequence of abortion is the mental and emotional damage the women and their significant others bear. A study by the Iranian Journal of Psychiatry found that a significant portion women who underwent abortions suffered depression, had worries of not being able to conceive again, and abnormal eating behaviors. Additional psychological side effects were prevalent rates of decreased self-esteem, nightmare, guilt, and regret [4]. In Norway, a similar study was conducted, and the conclusion of higher depression rates concurred with that of the aforementioned one [5]. Women who had undergone abortions were also found to have “significantly higher” anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale than those of the general population [6].Among Finnish women, those who had prior induced abortions were three times as likely as the general population to commit suicide [7]. 173,000 American women who aborted were 154% more likely to choose suicide than those who carried to term, according to a peer-reviewed study by the Southern Medical Journal [8].By making available the option to abort, we subject women to a wide array of issues that can affect them long-term. This procedure also affects their partners: research shows that men can be just, if not more so, negatively affected by their significant other’s decision to undergo it [9].=Pro’s Case=I don’t have room to respond to all of Pro’s contentions, so I’ll address some here and reserve the right to address them all next round.1. Right to abortiona. Pro’s autonomy argument is *entirely* dependent on the premise that abortion is absolutely harmless. If we can buy that abortion poses any harm whatsoever, regardless of how great or small that harm is, then this point is completely null. My immoral argument does this and more.b. The assertion that consciousness confers value is *completely* unfounded. A man in a coma is unconscious, yet Pro would have us believe that it is completely moral to end the life of an unconscious man. Pro needs to support this assertion before he can take it anywhere.c. Being denied an abortion in a country where the procedure has very few restrictions is not the same as simply not having access in a country where access is limited. Of course disappointment will ensue when one is expecting to receive a service and unexpectedly gets denies; in the scenario in which abortions are generally illegal, this expectation disappointment would not exist.d. Pro doesn’t prove (1) how “self-defense” is relevant to supposed psychological harms, or (2) that the state has an inherent interest in preventing psychological harms to its citizens. The state has interests, Pro doesn’t show why the state has this one or why it’s relevant to this argument.e. Cross-apply my studies that show across-the-board harms to women and their partners as a result of obtaining abortions. Until Pro can show that an abortion ban would have quite the harms my studies showed (i.e. higher rates of suicide), his point doesn’t hold up.2. Back-alley abortionsPro’s arguments show correlation, not causation; they can only be seen as somewhat true for developing countries. Pregnant individuals there are generally not going to have as much access to well-trained physicians as people in developed countries will. Before Roe v. Wade in the United States, when abortion was banned, it was estimated that “90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians” [10].Ireland, despite its tight abortion restrictions, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world [11]. Malta also has substantially tight restrictions, and their maternal mortality rate is lower than the US’s [11]. Poland’s maternal mortality rate actually dropped, from 13 per 100k people when abortion was legal in 1995, to 3 per 100k people in 2015, when it had been banned for some time [12].This argument is merely just a developed country phenomenon. The NY Times article Pro cited admits that “The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available”. Even if we buy that legal abortions reduced the South African maternal mortality rate, this does, that wouldn’t have been the only, and arguably, it wouldn’t have been the best way to do it. We needn’t legalize procedures that end the lives of the innocent just to make the life-ending process less hazardous. = Sources =1. https://www.epm.org...2. Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 433. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition. Chicago 19744. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...9. http://www.menandabortion.net...10. Mary Calderone, "Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem," in American Journal of Health 50 (July 1960):949.11. http://apps.who.int...12. http://www.who.int...