Abortion Laws Should Be Legalized.

We are examining many of the abortion-related issues. That makes for a good debate. 1. Con argues that the fetus is not part of the mother, on the grounds that the DNA of the fetus is different from that of the mother. In both males and females, mitochondrial DNA only has the DNA of the mother. http://en.wikipedia.org... So by Con's logic, adult sons' mitochondria are still part of the mother rather than of a different human. Red blood cells have no DNA, so by Con's logic the red blood of a human is not necessarily part of a human at all. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... DNA is not the determinant. Con's is equivocating "part of." In the contention, clearly the operative definition of "part of" was that the fetus is integrated with the mother and cannot survive independently. Con did not dispute that contention. Con claims that the mothers immune system is weakened to accommodate the child. If so, that does not mean that the fetus is not part of the mother. It only means that some parts of the mother are accommodated differently than other parts. Of course, after the birth the child is dependent on adults, but not necessarily the mother. Dependent sick people are not "part of" their caretakers. 2. Late term or not, abortions are sometimes medically necessary: "Dr. Papa discussed the case of one thirty-year-old woman, both of whose parents had a history of heart attacks. This woman, herself, had a heart attack in which her cardiac tissue was damaged. She desperately wanted to have her baby, but after careful examination and many diagnostic tests, Dr. Papa determined that she could not carry the child to viability without a high probability of her own death. Suddenly this poor woman and her husband were plummeted into a world where, instead of choosing baby names and nursery furniture, they were making a date to be admitted to the hospital for a medically necessary abortion. ... Another woman was found to have severely enlarged arteries near the heart, a condition of which she was unaware before she became pregnant. She, too, underwent a medically necessary abortion even though she, too, really wanted to have her baby." http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com... Politicians have no business making a legal decision that abortions are never necessary. The decision is for physicians and patients. 3. My point was that since spontaneously aborted microscopic embryos are not given tiny caskets and funerals, we know that people judge microscopic embryos as substantially less important, virtually insignificant, compared to fully-formed independent humans. If a person dies from, say, a lightning strike, we care a great deal, regardless that the death was due to natural causes. These reactions are a product of human nature. It is therefore illogical to claim that a microscopic embryo is somehow just like any other human. Nothing is more natural than mothers dying in child birth or children dying very young. Tour an old graveyard and read the tombstones. If nature is to prevail, we would have to allow such horrid things. Perhaps there is some relief in not having to make the choices that modern technology forces upon us, but that is a price for advancing beyond the barbarous times when nature inevitably took its course. We must be allowed to choose, and not pretend that we should not. 4. The occurrence of future Einsteins and future Hitlers alike are in proportion to the total number of births. The proportions do not change whether or not there are abortions. Con speculates that there might be a danger of underpopulation. What exactly is that danger? The only negative I can think of is that Ponzi-scheme social programs burden future generations. The cure for that is to have savings instead, a much better idea than requiring ever-growing population. In any case, economic conditions are the dominant conditions determining population growth, and the dominant mechanism is birth control. In the US the Great Depression marked the lowest birth rates. The dangers of over-population are easily demonstrated. Countries cannot keep up with the resource needs of large population growth. 5.1 Con claimed that the emotional pain of abortion is more serious than any injuries. That's untrue, because the injuries include death, and there are vanishingly few people who would choose death rather than risk emotion pain. The issue is who gets to make the choice. Many women who have abortions have no significant emotional distress. One study found "50–60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases. The risk factors identified suggest that it may be possible to ameliorate or even prevent such distress." http://www.ejog.org... If abortion is illegal, then many of the women will have illegal abortions. It is illogical to assume that illegal abortions are less stressful than legal ones. They are surely more stressful. If the abortion is deterred, then childbirth is stressful as well. All major life events are stressful: marriage, divorce, childbirth, moving to a new city, and changing jobs, for example. The goal should not be to pass laws that prevent stressful events, but rather to allow people to make choices, even if the results are stressful. 5.2 Con grants that wealthier women will be able to travel to obtain safe legal abortions, while poorer women will not. Con argues that is like any other advantage of wealth, akin to affording a Ferrari rather than a plain Ford. The difference is that the unfairness is created by a law imposed by government that restricts free choice. For example, suppose the government decided for some reason to put a very high tax on vaccines, so that poorer people could not well afford them. The unfairness in that it is unnecessary, artificially induced by government. Government ought not be in the business of creating new, unneeded inequity. 5.3 I argued that fixing botched illegal abortions would put an unnecessary financial strain on hospital emergency rooms. Con argued that hospitals could handle the increased burdens, but did not dispute that the burden would be large nor that it is unnecessary. The question is why the public should have to pay more taxes to attempt to repair the human suffering caused by making abortion illegal. The burden is substantial: "Many deaths from illegal abortion would go unlabeled as such because of careless or casual autopsies, lack of experience and ability of autopsy surgeons, and simply the shame and fear associated with abortion's illegality. According to a 1967 study, illegal abortion was the most common single cause of maternal mortality in California.37 Doctors who worked in emergency rooms before 1973, and saw first-hand the consequences of illegal abortion, would be in the best position to know. Dr. Louise Thomas, a New York City hospital resident during the late 1960s, summed up the dangers of illegal abortion, remembering the "Monday morning abortion lineup" of the pre-Roe period: 'What would happen is that the women would get their paychecks on Friday, Friday night they would go to their abortionist and spend their money on the abortion. Saturday they would start being sick and they would drift in on Sunday or Sunday evening, either hemorrhaging or septic, and they would be lined up outside the operating room to be cleaned out Monday morning. There was a lineup of women on stretchers outside the operating room, so you knew if you were an intern or resident, when you came in Monday morning, that was the first thing you were going to do.' " (ref lists 36-38 in http://www.prochoiceamerica.org...) Abortion is a difficult and stressful decision, but it should be a personal one.