Abortion

Thank you for your response. After reading the peer reviewed report (abstract, but we have enough to work with) and the other sources linked in your previous round, I found even more compelling evidence to reject the Con position. At this point, I can see no way for Con to secure support. I am doing my best to clash in this debate. Con still has not adequately addressed maternal death, nor has he addressed the absolute nature of his position – abortion should be illegal. As I stated in the last round, even if Con can show that abortion causes post abortion depression, he is still not addressing my contention, maternal death. I responded to claims of post abortion depression because this is the only near relevant position Con presented after my first round. I will take Con's arguments in the order that he presented them: Complications to Abortion: I agree there are complications to abortion; it is an operation and all operations have complications, but those complications, as clearly stated in the study, result in less deaths than those associated with childbirth for some women. This point is all I needed to show your position does not consider these risks in any capacity. Your position does not even consider these matters since abortion should always be illegal. Con goes further and quotes the worldwide stats from a peer reviewed journal – thank you so much. I was going to leave the worldwide stats alone (hence the reason I focused on the US) but you brought them in so I will quote from your source: "Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur." Con, you are supposed to be attacking my position concerning maternal death. Instead, you presented the most restrictive abortion position, "abortion should be illegal" and provided stats showing that restrictive abortion laws are a leading cause in maternal death worldwide. Again, thank you. The maternal death rate from abortion vs. childbirth: Con relies on yet another anti abortion source to show that these rates are nearly the same. As I said, even if he can do this, he is still avoiding the elephant in the room. Now, Con suggests that the statistics provided are small (6/100,000 childbirth and 3/100,000 for abortion). The 6/100,000 is relative to dying in a car crash and Con supports the car crash analogy with a source (which his original source failed to do – nice work Con) Here is the problem though – Con's source jumped through some pretty fantastic hoops to get to this number. As shown in the "Redefining the Parameters" section of the report, This group made up a term called "birth avoidance mortality" so they could include deaths related to IUDs, hysterectomies, oral contraceptives, etc. I invite all reviewers to read this section and decide whether this redefinition is supported. I see little to consider here. Mr. Allot's credibility in relation to an unlinked study: Link the study and settle the issue. You, and many anti abortion sites, referenced this study. Where is it? I consider his reference less than credible because he does not give me the details I need to find it. I concede that depression may occur after an abortion, but the effects and the magnitude are not supported in the literature. The report I linked, and you quoted, said as much. Life at Conception: Con uses a horrible source that links another horrible source. Both are steeped in religiosity and the definition of life provided in the first can apply to crystal formations. As I made clear in the first round, you could have avoided a "life at conception" argument and I offered a helpful definition for you to do so, but you have now articulated this position so ectopic pregnancies have come into play. (See 1st round response) Ectopic Pregnancies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... As stated very clearly in this source: "An ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). The baby (fetus) cannot survive, and often does not develop at all in this type of pregnancy." The death rate for ectopic pregnancy in the US is now at 0.1%. Why? Because the pregnancy is terminated safely. Your stance "abortion is illegal" combined with "a fetus is born in the moment of conception" puts women in great danger. Under your position, terminating an ectopic pregnancy is abortion and can no longer be tolerated. Do you wish to reconsider your position? Further Information: Con explains that youth (15-19) is a major reason for abortion rates but his own source states that of the abortions reported, women from 15-19 accounted for 16.5% in the study. I don't consider 16% to be a major reason. Please support this statement and explain why it is relevant to your position that ectopic pregnancies cannot be terminated. Lastly, Con says that a woman that gets an abortion is likely to get a second one, or third but the same data shows that a majority of abortions in all states that participated in the study are first time abortions. See Table 19 http://www.cdc.gov... Now, explain your position in light of maternal death especially concerning ectopic pregnancies. Under your rule the answer is simple: Let them die.