Abortion

Although Just titled "Abortion" I am making a common assumption that we are debating both its moral grounds and its inscription in law. This is a multifaceted debate which will need coverage of all points to show that it is either immoral or moral and should be illegal/legal. Finally, Burden of Proof is on both sides. That is all, now before I make my full case as to the reasons why abortion is not murder as to why it is the more medically sound option as to the different types of abortion and why modern technology has nulinvoided all your points. I will rebut your essay on one facet of this debate the medical aspect. Before I make my rebuttal I will outline what I would implement if I were to win this argument. Abortion would only be offered in the first trimester by the process of medical abortion. if this fails then we can explore surgical means if necessary in a case by case basis as well as anyone who wishes to have an abortion after the first trimester. Let's start, checking your sources first up so we can see the legitimacy of your "facts" we see sources (2,3) which are supposed to back your claim that people are dying because of abortions yet when clicking on the links we get a 404 error where the page in question has been removed I assume that this is because of such misinformation but we cannot know all we know is that you're trying to base arguments on a false premise. what else will we find in your sources? in your third course all it does is emotive garble with no facts and only a few case studies and assumptions to back up your claim, the very same site also makes claims like "Fact #12: Prior to abortion's legalization, 90% of abortions were done by doctors, not by "coat hangers in back alleys. " which are a gross misrepresentation of the facts implying that it was better back when they were illegal which, as I will expand upon in my arguments, is completely incorrect. Now to start off the rebuttal to your content. Your point about the necessity of abortion. Your Dublin professional has received much backlash for this statement and its legitimacy as simply put, He was Wrong. There are many cases in which an abortion in needed in order to save the mother's life (1). Medicine is not a subject in which there are defined black and white lines on what is best for the patient as there can be so many variables determining the health. Your "alternatives" are medically risky as without the abortion you are effectively gambling with the mother's life as well as the unborn child and it is not up to you to decide to take the chance. the cases in which it generally accepted to be necessary is that of severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia then there are many more cases in which an abortion is recommended but I have a character limit to keep to. So to round this off you talked about the chances of keeping the unborn child alive are much higher if we don't abort well of course but if we don't abort the chances of losing both increases in many cases and that is something you comment on later saving one life at the cost of another is not morally ok so by your own logic your point cannot stand. if we know we can save one we won't risk that one, unless that one has consented to it, risking it in order to try to save two. How dangerous abortion is. Now here you have misconstrued how abortions take place saying how dangerous it is for women. well since the legalisation of abortion, contrary to your sources baseless belief, the percentage of people dying through abortion has decreased. I cover this in my main argument but just quickly ill explain the ways in which a child is aborted. there is medical abortion, which I am pushing for, which provides the mother with two drugs methotrexate or mifepristone sometimes followed by misoprostol. (5). what these drugs do is they tell the body to naturally abort the child, naturally meaning that sometimes there are miscarriages naturally and this tricks the body into dealing with it like that, so the only consequence is a slight increase in cramping over normal and none of the archaic and outdated procedures you described are needed. finally, before moving into your third point I just want to make a comment that association is not causation I can find an association between the number of deaths in a family vs the number of TV's they own it doesn't mean giving everyone free TV's will increase their survival. so all of your correlations between woman whom abort are "4x more likely to die in the following year" is just fear mongering. All based off a site whose legitimacy I have already put into question. The negative Emotional/Mental side effects. Now for this one, I would like to refer to your own source (5) I have taken the very first paragraph as to not cherry pick - "Abortion can emotionally affect each woman differently. Some women report a sense of relief after having an abortion. The reasons for relief also vary from woman to woman. ". the way you have described this feeling is quite misleading, almost one-sided, as you have only quoted the negative feeling associated with abortion when in fact many people have positive feelings after abortion like that of freedom, relief, control over both their mind and body, joy knowing they can live the life they choose not the one you are trying to force upon them. you state there are problems in a small number of cases where women are being forced into having an abortion when in fact before you have an abortion one has to go through multiple sessions with the physician to assess the situation and recommend treatment so this pressure if is such and the issue can be reduced there. but this is not a reason to take abortion off the table for and entire populous. before I move on just pointing out that many women in the 21st century are not looking for a male father figure in their child's life they are trying to do it all themselves and all respect to them so saying that this is a pressure to have a strong father figure, oops no we missing that time to abort is an absurd statement. quickly the Hippocratic oath is far outdated and if medical professions all agreed to this oath then they wouldn't be able to perform surgical procedures as this oath your advocating prevents the use of a knife and thus a scalpel. (5) then you misquote the actual vow most doctors take the geneva declaration adding in your own "from the time of conception" to push your agenda. for the full Geneva Declaration see (6) Now I don't have many characters left because of the amount of rebuttal I had. So, I will explain what life was like before abortion and make a few moral arguments that we need to consider. Back when abortion was illegal (say 1950's/1960's) the sheer number of people trying to abort in US alone were 200 000 to 1.2 million per annum (there is a variance in statistics as many weren't recorded to the margin of error is great) but even the low estimate of 200 000 people trying to abort their young every year in just America through illegal means is insane. (2/3) these people went through hell and back to relieve the pressure having a child would put on their lives and many of them didn't make it through the journey with reports of thousands dying every year due to illegal abortion techniques is this a world we want to go back to? after we have worked so hard making this legal to take a step back and not use all the medical advances we have to ease the lives of others. An argument we need to have is the point in which we consider something to be life. as although ignored thus far it is a major topic that weighs many people as it categorises this as murder which has many negative connotations with the word or just the stopping of life before it starts. Making the case for life from conception has problems because as a zygote what differentiates it from any other unicellular organism and why does it get more rights than E. coli or another bacterium that we "clean" of ourselves daily. so how about after the first trimester this is probably the one with the most common ground between our two viewpoints but comes into the same problem as it is only a ball of cells with the emotional capacity of nothing more than a dog and we would put one of them down to save a human life any day. the last and the most definitely is some point after exiting the womb because the baby has taken their first breath and is living separate from the mother as well as they have started the path to cognitive growth which before then was all innate not learnt behaviours. I await your thoughts on the matter. finally Rape you have talked of the negatives to the mental state of the mother after abortion but what if they were raped and you forced them to keep that child to term. every time they wake up with morning sickness they are reminded, every time they look in the mirror and see the have grown a little bigger, every time that baby kicks, every time they see that child after birth they are reminded of what is considered to be one of the most traumatising experiences of their lives and you are the one who has caused all that pain. That is the end of my first argument and rebuttal I await your response and thoughts on these matters. One final word I am assuming as you set the character limit we are not allowed to use links to google docs in order to expand on one's case above that of the character limit. I have refrained from doing. 1) . http://www.usatoday.com... 2) . http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... 3) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4) . http://www.pamf.org... 5) . http://www.todayifoundout.com... 6) . http://www.wma.net...