Abortion should be legal

I've wanted to debate this topic for a while now, and my opponent has shown some interest in it on the forums, so I thought this would be a good debate. Since the resolution is very straightforward I don't think an acceptance round is needed. Con may use their text space however they want to. Opening arguments: 1) Uncertainty about the beginning of life The scientific answer to the question of whether life begins at conception, at birth, or at some other point during a pregnancy is not absolute, but depends on which perspective is used (1). Therefore, legal systems are unable to know whether embryos and fetuses are scientifically human. However, international human rights codes (2) and almost all national constitutions, including that of the United States (3), refrain from defining them as such. Giving embryos and fetuses legal status as human beings would come with many complications, such as the hassle of counting them in censuses and recording them as tax dependents, as well as such absurdities as extensions of birth certificates (which would, of course, now be conception certificates) and social security numbers to the unborn. Given that there's a chance of miscarriage, this wouldn't be at all practical. Although we don't scientifically know whether a fetus is human and legally, fetuses are not considered human in the vast majority of cases, we do know that women are human and most certainly do have corresponding human rights. This includes the right to their own bodies. The human rights of someone acknowledged as a person by science and law should take priority over the rights of a fetus that, due to our lack of consensus on whether it's alive or not, we don't even know we should be giving to them. The government should protect lives, but when something isn't legally considered alive and hasn't been proven definitively by science to be so and this thing is attached to and dependent on someone's body, it isn't protecting life, it's restricting the autonomy of the mother and infringing on her freedom. 2) The parasitism of the embryo/fetus A parasite is a plant or an animal organism that lives in or on another and takes its nourishment from that other organism (4). If a fetus is alive, it fits this definition. It's inside the mother's uterus and completely depends on her blood supply for oxygen and nutrients (5). Pregnancy also has several negative side effects on the mother (6). I'm not implying that pregnancies are like diseases, because if the mother consents to loaning out her organs to another being, dealing with side effects, giving birth and caring for a baby and is able to do this without significant emotional trauma, damage to her personal life or ambitions or financial difficulty, that's great. But if she doesn't want something inside her, living in and off her body, she shouldn't be forced to have it. An analogy can be drawn here with organ donation. In some cases, a definitely living person's life can be saved by an organ donation. But donation isn't compulsory, and if a donor isn't found, the person dies. This is because people need to give consent before parts of their body are loaned out, even if someone could die if they don't. If people shouldn't be forced to let those in need use their organs, why should a mother be forced to let an embryo/fetus use hers? Babies and young children also depend on their mothers, but this is social dependence, so it doesn't affect bodily autonomy. Mothers could breastfeed, thus making their babies dependent on their bodies for nutrition, but they don't have to now that they can buy milk. Placentas and sacs of amniotic fluid, however, aren't sold in supermarkets. Only the mother's body can nourish a fetus - it can only survive as a parasite. Ergo, it shouldn't survive without the mother's consent. 3) Alternatives and safety Mothers instinctively won't want to get abortions, because limiting the number of offspring limits the survival chance of humanity. So this "irresponsible mother who aborts because she feels like it," is an anti-choice myth. In actuality, women sometimes have no choice but to abort. The use of abortion as birth control could be due to the malfunctioning of contraceptives,or the fact that they're not easily accessible or sex education classes haven't taught women to obtain or use them correctly. When there are freely and easily accessible contraceptives, abortion rates are lower (7). It makes much more sense for women to use contraception than to have an abortion, as it's cheaper, easier, less time-consuming and causes less pain and distress than abortion, so they're more likely to do so. But if they're unable to and want to terminate their pregnancy, they should have the right to do so. Adoption is often lauded as an alternative beneficial to both parties: the mother isn't forced to look after a child, and the fetus doesn't die. But women have other motives to abort besides inability to care for a potential child. implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn"t the case. Birth can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States (8) and is the sixth most common cause of death for women aged 20 - 34 (9). As well as the harmful side effects of pregnancy I mentioned earlier, pregnant women, especially teenagers, are also at risk of being socially shunned, abused by parents or partners or becoming depressed because of their pregnancies, and this can have profound negative psychological impact on them. Not to mention the fact that if the pregnancy was a result of rape or the mother's life is at risk, forcing her to carry a fetus endangers her life and health and that of the fetus. If a mother being forced to give birth to a child she can't look after results in the child being orphaned, the child will often be psychologically damaged, and even adoption can cause damage (10). An abortion could actually save a child from having an awful life. As there's often no alternative to abortion, unsurprisingly, women seek them even if they're illegal (11). This causes a black market, which is unsafe for both the mother and the fetus. Romania banned abortion for 15 years from 1966, during which time over 9,000 women died from unsafe abortion and many more were permanently injured (12). When it was legalised there, the maternal mortality rate fell by 50% in the first year alone (13). Abortions can be one of the safest medical procedures, with a death risk 14 times less than that of giving birth (14) but only if carried out professionally and hygienically and not on the black market. To conclude, abortion should be legal for the sake of the certain personhood of the mother, the health, safety and quality of life of both her and the fetus, and because there is often no alternative that doesn't involve stripping the mother of her humanity. Sources: 1. http://freeinquiryforum.com... 2. https://www.un.org... - "All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights." 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 4. http://www.medicinenet.com... 5. http://education-portal.com..., http://www.articlesbase.com... and every other article on fetal development. 6. http://www.bellybelly.com.au... 7. http://jezebel.com... 8. http://www.cnbc.com... 9. http://www.cdc.gov... 10. http://www.mentalhelp.net... 11. Medical World News. 1987. Abortion Clinic's Toughest Cases. pp 55-61. March 9. 12. Kligman, Gail. "Political Demography: The Banning of Abortion in Ceausescu's Romania". In Ginsburg, Faye D.; Rapp, Rayna, eds. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction 13. http://www.cs.cmu.edu... 14. http://health.usnews.com...