Abortion

RP1:Ron has conceded.Point 2: Poor usually breed poor. And it is not just the normal poor. I am mainly talking about the people that live in the "bad part of town" and have been in jail several times, these types of people almost always breed poor children who turn out just like them.I felt like I touched off on this, but what ever. By saying 'Poor breed poor' , you are agreeing that a large portion of the people using abortion. Not always does 'cant afford it'= poor. Because of this I wish to see some numbers that show that abortion is mostly used by the poor. To me, this seemed like a slippery slope arguement.Response Point 3: Think of it this way: Why does a family generally hid the fact that their child is gay? Because it would tarnish their child's and their family's reputation. This same thing happened even 4 or 5 years after Roe vs. Wade. Now you might be asking, "well everyone has to put a cause of death on a death certificate. There is no way someone can miss the big scar on the woman's body that shows an abortion. The number "39 in 1972" is well documented. There is no way around that. How could this be possible?" Well the families a lot of times would pay off the death certificate composer to change the cause of death. This means that the number of deaths from illegal abortion, even in 1972, could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands of people higher. Clear?Assuming they would do that how would they find someone to do that? I doubt a composer would just change the DOA.I was also puzzled by the gay analogy. There is still a number of gays 'in the closet'. It is common for a gay to admit to being a gay. The numbers for pro-life/pro-choice are basically equal. Assuming at least ONE person in the family will spill the beans. I will wrap up on this. Abortion still goes on, will it be liked? No. But some person will still 'feel' for you.Response Point 4: You have not disproved this statement: " "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.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu................... "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. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change.":http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu.........; The decline in crime in the 1990s can be directly traced to the legalization of abortion in 1973 becuase the time frame is just accurate. You have not disproved this, and you need to provide counter-sources instead of denying the connection. And what does Lady Gaga have to do with this? That topic is completely irrelevant to this debate.Adoptions are usually handled by a government agency or a private group. These groups work hard to investigate the people who say they want to adopt a child. Before letting them adopt a child, adoption workers need to find out a lot of stuff about the adoptive couple. [1]So with this intense check most do not get abused. only 10% of kids in adoption line went unadopted [2]Now here is where you say 10% is a lot:If you are not adopted you go in to foster care where you go with a goverment person (same thing as adoption except it's a waiting line of people waiting for unadopted kids), aka foster homes. http://kidshealth.org......; [1]http://www.chacha.com......; [2] I will top off that Chicago isn't a good place relating a safe place to rise a family. Use other, smaller cities.Response Point 5: Think of it this way: What is better: Having a fetus to "possibly" experience a slight moment of pain, or for the fetus to grow up into an adult that either most likely will live a life in extreme povery, or either be murdered or commit at least one murder? It is better for society because it decreases the murder rate. My proof is in Response Point 4.So you are saying abortion , which , in my view is murder, is a just cause because the future child might feel pain in life? Response Point 6: Looking at the title of the website; "pro life physicians". The word pro life is in the title of the website. This site is most certainly biased. Give me a scientific site that does not have bias in the title. And the question is not whether a fetus belongs in the human species or not, because it most certainly does, but the question is whether the fetus is alive and it's abortion can be considered murder at a certain date of pregnancy.First, you have to prove that having your postion on the debate in the URL makes you biased. I think you need more then just a title to see if it is biased. Give more example on the website itself.Attack Point 1: Now, I am going to use the major pro-Life argument that abortion causes mental illness in the woman, and completely turn it against them. "Kendall said mental health problems seemed to be linked specifically to unwanted pregnancies rather than abortion.": http://www.msnbc.msn.com.......... "An unwanted pregnancy may cause mental health problems, a woman may already have problems before becoming pregnant, or it could be a combination of the two, he added.": http://www.guardian.co.uk.......... "The evidence shows though that whether these women have abortions - or go on to give birth - their risk of having mental health problems will not increase.": http://www.bbc.co.uk.......... What I am trying to prove here is that not only does the unwanted pregnancy, not abortion causes the mental illness, but it is also true that aborting, say in the 10th week would stop the mental illness from getting worse. If the woman had to run the course of the pregnancy, the mental illness would be a lot worse.Attack Point 2: 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.":http://www.guttmacher.org............. 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.But abortion-stopping laws dont target these. if Abortion is legal, the vast majority of abortion will not happen. And your statistic that 130,000 illegal abortions is again flawed because you are only counting documented and speculated. As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child [3]U.S. National Cancer Institute researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, who was the chief organizer of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 that persuaded women that it was "well established" that "abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk," has reversed her position and now admits that abortion and oral contraceptives raise breast cancer risks. So she now thinks abortion causes it. Dr. Brinton and her colleagues that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40% Yes, Dr. H. Ownby did this in 1983. This was a study of women who had breast cancer that had been treated and gone into remission. Ownby studied how many of these developed a recurrence of their cancer. His research showed that among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term, 10% had a recurrence of their cancer within three years. Of those women who had aborted their first pregnancy 20% had a recurrence. Among those who had aborted their second and/or third pregnancy also, 30% had recurrences. These sources will be commented