Abortion

The resolution is: Abortion should be legal in all cases through the first trimester (in other words, we are not debating late-term abortion). Contention 1: Pregnancy causes a higher rate of breast cancer than abortion. Therefore, a forced birth of the fetus puts the mother at a greater risk for breast cancer than if she was allowed to have an abortion. It's not the abortion that causes breast cancer so much as it is the hormones that run through her body when she is pregnant. These hormones put her at a greater chance of breast cancer than otherwise. These hormones intensify thorugh the course of pregnancy, meaning that a first-trimester abortion would mean fewer hormones running through her body than during birth, meaning that a forced birth puts the mother at a great risk for breast cancer than if she was alllowed to have an abortion. The earlier, the better. "In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the worldï¿½€™s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: ï¿½€ï¿½ Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). ï¿½€ï¿½ Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. ï¿½€ï¿½ Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be ï¿½€œwell establishedï¿½€ï¿½ (the highest level)."[1] This pretty much proves my point. Pregnancy-->more hormones-->greater risk for breast cancer. Abortion helps REDUCE the risk of breast cancer. Then why is there such a strong belief that abortion causes breast cancer? Two reasons. One, pro-life people are very adement about their cause. They accept whatever information they are given, no matter the sources or quality of the study. So naturally, there will be significant flaws in their findings. But why the flaws? Because pro-lifers are using old data. They care so much about their cause that they don't even check the date of the study. Years ago, there were several studies linking abortion to an increased chance of breast cancer. But since then, there has been an enormous amount of studies debunking the claim. "Extremist, religious anti-choice web sites are using old data from an old study as proof of a cause and effect relationship even while the National Cancer Institute and one of the study's own authors clearly state that over the course of years of research, including those old studies, overall evidence indicates no connection between the two. "[2] Contention 2: The major crime decline in the 1990s was partially caused by the Roe vs. Wade 1973 overturn of the abortion ban. Many people have been trying to debunk this connection, but it is very easy to see the link. "The underlying theory rests on two premises: 1) unwanted children are at greater risk for crime, and 2) legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births.""These children who were born because their mothers were denied an abortion were substantially more likely to be involved in crime, even when controlling for the income, age, education and health of the mother." Now for the killer: "The magnitude of the differences in the crime decline between high- and low-abortion states was over 25 percent for homicide, violent crime and property crime. For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an increase of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states."[3] Not to mention, the groups of people who commit crime more often had higher abortion rates than low-crime groups. This is even more evidence of the connection. "Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children). Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.""Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%." (please take into account of percentage of these races in porportion of the population)[4] What does this show? That the higher-crime groups have a higher abortion rate, and so the crime rate is measurable. Contention 3: Prohibiting abortion will increase the amount of crimes and will be bypassed. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died."[4] This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess. "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone""The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City."[4] This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law. Contention 4: Prohibiting abortion would increase the unemployment rate and the Government debt. Here is some simple logic. Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate. And more simple logic. Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease. Now some might say more people=greater GDP. But I have proved earlier that the poor are more likely to have abortions, and so the contribution is small. You might also say more people=more people to hire. But this is refuted with simple logic again. If there are only 1,000 jobs available, it dosen't matter if there are 100, 1000, 10000, or 100000 ready to fill the job because there are only 1,000 jobs available. Contention 5: The non-aborted babies would lead a bad life. Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance? Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born. Sources: [1]:http://www.cancer.org... [2]:http://www.rhrealitycheck.org... [3]:http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu... [4]:http://www.guttmacher.org...