Abortion

I accept the challenge offered me by Pro, even though I by and large agree with Pro's argument that abortion-on-demand is not defensible, but that abortion is defensible in rare cases such as rape or the mother's life being in danger, and I never argue against that with which I agree of course (which would make no sense). I agree with the conclusion that abortion should be legal only in specific cases as well, leaving me only one thing I can disagree with here, and that less stringently, that a child should not be killed for the sake of physical abnormality. I presume this was the point Pro wished to debate with me on, since my user page makes clear that I support abortion in the case of rare circumstances such as rape and life of the mother, and possibly even as late as 12 weeks. For the sake of clarity, I will first elucidate my reasoning on abortion in general, and then explain my reasoning on the sole point of disagreement. My Views on Abortion in GeneralMy reasoning, as aditionally stated here[1], is as follows:Ultimately, right to privacy is no justification for killing another human being, whether in the privacy of one's own home or own body. Right to choice does not justify choosing to harm another person, and right to one's body cannot justify using that body to harm another person. As such, rights, choices, and privacy are no excuse for harming another person if they are indeed a person, erego, this question revolves necessarily around the issue of personhood. While potential exceptions naturally exist such as rape and life of the mother, since in the case she did not make a sexual decision to be held accountable for, and when her life is endangered by the pregnancy, her life is also at stake, and she should have a choice to save her life (obviously), abortion on demand is ultimately not justifiable when a child is apparently human.Thus, this revolves around the issue of personhood and fetal viability, when a child becomes human, for if it is human, no buzzword argument is sufficient to justify its murder save in such rare circumstances. Furthermore, that such rare circumstances should be raised by those who seek to justify abortion-on-demand evidences that they themselves realize abortion can only be justified in such rare cases, and fallaciously use said cases in an attempt to justify abortion more broadly. When it comes to fetal viability, completed brain cells appear within the first 2 weeks of pregnancy. The heart beats at 3 weeks. Blood flows in the baby's veins separate from the mother's blood at 4 weeks. Brain wave activity occurs at 6 weeks. Based on nervous system development, perception of pain likely begins at 8 weeks. Thumb sucking occurs at 9 weeks. The entire body is sensitive to touch at 10 weeks. Breathing of amniotic fluid and all facial expressions visible (e.g. smiling) at 11 weeks. Crying at 12 weeks, as well as the ability to practice breathing. All senses present including vocal chords at 13 weeks.[2] The earliest recorded successful pregnancy is at 21 weeks[3] even though abortion is allowed in all 9 months of pregnancy.[4] As such, it is logical that a minimum of 18,150 abortions, 1.5% of the 1.21 million annual abortion according to Planned Parenthood's own statistics arm, the Guttmacher Institute, are murder each year, since they occur after the 21st week of pregnancy.[5]So what does public polling show the American people believe? According to Gallup[6] while 62% of Americans support abortion during the first trimester (12 week period of pregnancy), only 24% support abortion in the second trimester, and only 10% for the third trimester. 83% of Americans support abortion when the mother's life is endangered, 82% when the woman's physical health is endangered, 75% when the pregnancy was caused by rape/incest, 61% when the woman's mental health is endangered, 51% when there is evidence the baby may be mentally impaired, 50% when the baby may be physically impaired, and only 36% when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child. Ultimately, 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, 39% that it should be legal only in a few circumstances, 13% that it should be legal in most circumstances, 25% that it should always be legal, and 4% hold no opinion.As such, the majority of Americans, over 75%, disagree with abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and can recognize that abortion beyond this point is clearly murder. Only 36% believe abortion justifiable when the woman or family can't afford to raise the child. There is nonetheless overwhelming recognition that abortion should be legal in rare cases such as rape or life of the mother. However, it should be pointed out that rape and life of the mother account for less than1% of all abortions[7], at least 13 states had laws allowing abortion before Roe v. Wade in such cases and the number was rapidly growing[8], and virtually all legislation put out in the last two decades by the Pro-Life movement has included exceptions for abortion in said cases.Given this, I believe the courts have incorrectly decided the issue and that the American people should have their voices heard instead as the original judge, Henry Friendly, said in the first major abortion rights case, Hall v. Lefkowitz.[9] As Friendly concluded, "But the decision what to do about abortion is for the elected representatives of the people, not for three, or even nine, appointed judges." I believe the correct way forward is to put this issue to a vote and let the American people determine by ballot referendum what the correct viability limit on abortion should be, and in what circumstances is allowed. I have no doubt that they will agree with me, as shown by Gallup polling, and restrict abortion to roughly the 12th week of pregnancy, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, and allow abortion in cases such as rape and life of the mother.Point of DisagreementUltimately, I argue that abortion should be slightly more restrictive than Con believes, and not allow abortion simply because Down's Syndrome is evident in a pregnant child, or other illnesses for that matter. I believe we should err on the side of caution when potentially taking another human life, and that human life is precious. This is a very controversial issue according to Gallup polling[6] and I recognize that it is a 50% split here, unlike the broader abortion issue where there is broad consensus when human life begins, around 12 weeks, and that abortion-on-demand is immoral.We simply cannot ask unborn children whether they would like to be born, and I question whether we should infer they do not wish to be born because of a disability. I think the reasoning that one should not be born because they are disabled is a dangerous precedent that devalues those with disabilities, whether born or unborn. Furthermore, it allows us to set an arbitrary definition of who is worthy of being born. Does that set precedent for us to expand this to anyone who shows signs of depressin, for example? What if they show signs of dwarfism, a height disability? At what point do we draw the line in deciding the disability is so great they should not be born because of it?Ultimately, I would urge my opponent to reconsider whether such reasoning is preferable to adoption.Sources:[1] http://www.bereawiki.com... [2] http://www.hli.org...http://www.whyprolife.com...[3] http://healthland.time.com...[4] http://www.whyprolife.com...[5] http://www.guttmacher.org...[6] http://www.gallup.com...[7] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...[8] http://www.nrlc.org...[9] http://www.law.harvard.edu...