Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Rebuttal I: Human LifePro explains that being human is about pain and feelings, but it is not. As I explained, being a part of a species (Human) is about having that species DNA (Human DNA.) At conception, the zygote has human DNA, and is thus human.Pro is confused about what makes someone human. He posts a more philosophical concept of what it means to be human rather than a science-bound argument of genetics. A Zygote is human, and no lacking senses change that. There are many humans without all their senses, and they are still human [1: http://tinyurl.com...]. Pro’s logic is flawed. Not having the same level of development doesn’t make someone less human. By the logic, a child isn’t human because it isn’t fully developed.This isn’t about ending a life, but ending a human life. Stepping on insect life is quite different.Pro’s argument simply doesn’t hold on to my prior argument on the issue.Rebuttal II: The Mother’s LifeMuch of Pro’s argument is a flawed generalization. The global death rate among pregnant women does not accurately represent the US death rate. With places like Asia and Africa, the ratio is grossly inflated. In the US, the numbers go between 15 for every 100,000 pregnancies [2: http://tinyurl.com...] to 21 [3: http://tinyurl.com...]. That means a 1 in 4,762 chance of death AT LEAST. This means owning a house is more dangerous (1 in 38 chance of break in.)[4: http://tinyurl.com...] Standing is more dangerous (1 in 246 chance of dying from falling down)[5: http://tinyurl.com...] compared to the 1 in 2,506 lifetime change (odds of death in pregnancy multiplied by the average number of pregnancies per US woman.)[6: http://tinyurl.com...]An issue with aborting the child to save the Mother’s life is that 1) 15% isn’t to save the Mother’s life. Pro misrepresents the numbers. The 15% regards any harm that might befall the mother, including infertility, Anemia, and Placenta Previa. Most complications that lead to abortion aren’t life threatening, very few are, in fact. Half of all cases are the fault of the Hospital, and many can be fixed. Once you tear away all the less than justified excuses, you are left with a number too small to justify continued Legalization of Abortion.“Between 1968 and 2011 (the latest year for which figures are available) there have been 6.4 million abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these, 143 (0.006%) were performed under Section 1(4), ie where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman...” –The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health [7: http://tinyurl.com...]”And it’s certain many can be prevented through proper care.“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” – Dr. Alan Guttmacher.With the number of Abortions occurring for the absolute preservation of the Mother’s life, without any other option, being so small, it can’t justify the number of babies who would wrongly die under misuse of the allowance. The number of babies wrongly aborted under the guise of safety would outweigh the appropriate use of such an allowance by too great a number. I will explain this better…As convincing as the argument that women need abortion to save their lives is, it just doesn’t stand in the real world. The number of babies who would wrongly die under the misused guise of self-defense (the only legal form of Homicide, as my R1 argument made clear) would be higher than the number of mothers who would be saved. Since of the 15% that claim some form of harm, only 2.8% are for life-threatening issues, and much less are cases where the doctors couldn’t do anything else. Even at 2.8%, the number of innocent children dying from legalization would be twice that of mother/children lost because abortion wasn’t legal, no matter how much you attempt to restrict what counts as Self Defense, especially since (relative to the amount of time it takes) doctors earn more in an abortion [8: http://tinyurl.com...]. All it takes is the claim of self-defense, and abortion becomes an option for that 15% Pro mentioned.This means legalization for Self-Defense alone would allow a greater number of innocent deaths, thus being highly counter-productive to its original purpose.Conclusion I: Pro’s statistics are both generalizations that don’t properly represent the US, and doesn’t stand up to the accusations he has made. The number of women who legitimately require abortion to preserve life is too small to overtake the unjustified cases where the allowance of abortion would be misused.Rebuttal III: Rape and IncestBoth put together doesn’t even account for a percent of all abortions [9: http://tinyurl.com...]. You would end up with the same issue in Rebuttal II.Appealing to rape isn’t really relevant anyways. The cause of conception does not revoke a babies human rights. It isn’t remotely relevant to if the child deserves the right to life and liberty. This was stated in Premise II.Rape only changes the means of conception, and nothing else. Everything else is false dichotomy. Saying either it’s Abortion or [negative effect here] is a poor argument that plays off emotion. Saying that if the rape victim can’t get an abortion, she will either be 1) emotional hurt, 2) financially unstable, and 3) unhappy, simply fails to find support in fact. Pro’s assumption is only reasonable to people with no knowledge of what it’s like. His claim doesn’t match what people with experience say.According to one of the only studies strictly related to the topic of rape and abortion, 75-80% of all pregnant victims chose to keep the child [10: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault.”] The idea that most rape victims will want/need rape isn’t supported. The idea that providing Abortion to rape victims is merciful is easy to sell, but actual rape victims disagree. Cases of victims who kept their child and regretted it are hard to find, while an amazing 78% of rape victims who got abortions seem to disagree with Pro’s position that Abortion is the best answer. Unlike when a choice isn’t the best but you can still make it if you choose, this is about homicide. If homicide isn’t the only good answer, then it shouldn’t be an answer.Abortion is the Childs Rights being violated in place of better alternatives. Adoption would be the appropriate answer to issues like poverty, being too young, etc… If all of these cases were fixed through adoption, it would send less than 12,000 children into adoption each year, the equivalent of less than a 00.5% increase (50% increase every 100 years), outweighed by the increasing rate of adoption. Latest reports show that 88% of adopted children are healthy and happy. [11: http://tinyurl.com...]. This makes Adoption the appropriate answer.Pro also brought up the rapist getting visitation rights. This isn’t relevant… A child must die to prevent that? Much better alternatives are available, like repealing such a law. A leads to B. C leads to D. B sometimes involves D. Therefore A is to blame? That’s terrible logic. C (laws granting rapists visitation rights) is to blame. Rape and Incest only affect the cause, not that creation, and any inconvenience, big or small, have better alternatives than homicide.Conclusion II: There are too many alternatives for abortion to be an option. Pro’s whole case here is appeal to emotion and false dichotomy. Rape and Incest do not change the case at hand, only why we have to discuss the case.Additional Argument: Right to ChooseThe premise of the idea is that the mother would have the right to decide the value of her child, and rather or not it has the right to live. This premise is that the worth of the child is determined by how wanted it is. A child’s worth is not determined by how much his mother wanted him, and such an idea spits in the face as every Child Protection effort across the nation.“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” –Declaration of Independence. [12:http://tinyurl.com......]The Declaration of Independence says everyone is created (conceived) equal. The Declaration gives the child equality in worth, not the Mother.The idea that the Mother determines one’s right to life goes against the UDHR, which says everyone, regardless of any difference of ANY KIND, has rights, including right to life, and nothing/no one may decide otherwise.Final Conclusion: Pro has only brought up fallacies and unsupported claims. Most of his argument is False Dichotomy, Appeal to Emotion, and based off generalized information. None of his arguments hold up to my R1 arguments. Of his only 2 sources, the first only supports one of his claims, and the other is highly bias and unreliable in such a debate. If Pro brings up the age of some of my studies, I’d like to remind him that his NIH study is 2 years older than my oldest.An unborn child is a living human even as a Zygote. A mothers “choice” does not exceed the Declaration of Independence or UDHR.Rape and Incest only change the cause and not the creation or his value and rights. Too many alternatives are available, and making abortion legal for rape is simply against the Rights granted by the UDHR, regardless of ANY DISTINICTION of ANY KIND, even how he was conceived. We must remember the US ratified the UDHR, making it completely valid in the US.Legalizing abortion in cases of the mother’s life actually being threatened will lead to more innocent deaths than if abortion wasn’t legal at all. For the preservative of life, it’s more productive to not let abortion be legal at all.