Abortion Should be Illegal.

1. 20.6% of all pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion.
   
2. The top reason for abortion (25%) is not being ready for a child, <0.5% victim of rape
   

20.6% of all pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion.

The top reason for abortion (25%) is not being ready for a child, <0.5% victim of rape

Is it not just an extension of contraception if it's in the first term?

Is this not a good way to help alleviate the penalty on poor families?

Is it not best to let parents with the genes and situation where they either will be bad parents or don't want children to not reproduce?

In cases of rape why are you okay with the 'murder' even 0.5% of the time?

• The net-detriment to society and the born children of those seeking abortion often enough outweighs the harms of letting them live out that life of being unwanted and neglected. This is inherently a rebuttal to the morality idea.
  
• The abortions always, consistently, will happen anyway in dangerous and horrific ways that can really damage the womb and fetus (which may be unusuccessfully killed).
  
• The women and society benefit from not making one bad situation, remember Pro includes rape which is not even her decision, ruin her life and her productivity and wellbeing.
  

People have abortions all the time, regardless of what the law says
Ending a pregnancy is a common decision that millions of people make – every year a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion.
And regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, people still require and regularly access abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a US-based reproductive health non-profit, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 people in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only in instances to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 people in countries that broadly allow for abortion, a difference that is not statistically significant.
When undertaken by a trained health-care provider in sanitary conditions, abortions are one of the safest medical procedures available, safer even than child birth.

But when governments restrict access to abortions, people are compelled to resort to clandestine, unsafe abortions, particularly those who cannot afford to travel or seek private care. Which brings us to the next point.

Criminalising abortion does not stop abortions, it just makes abortion less safe
Preventing women and girls from accessing an abortion does not mean they stop needing one. That’s why attempts to ban or restrict abortions do nothing to reduce the number of abortions, it only forces people to seek out unsafe abortions

.
Unsafe abortions are defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both.”

They estimate that 25 million unsafe abortions take place each year, the vast majority of them in developing countries.

In contrast to a legal abortion that is carried out by a trained medical provider, unsafe abortions can have fatal consequences. So much so that unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide and lead to an additional five million largely preventable disabilities, according to the WHO.

Relationship With Abortion Law

Abortion laws have a spectrum of restrictiveness. Nations may allow abortions based on saving the mother’s life, preserving physical and mental health, and socioeconomic grounds, or may be completely unrestrictive (Figure 2). Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws. The median rate of unsafe abortions in the 82 countries with the most restrictive abortion laws is up to 23 of 1000 women compared with 2 of 1000 in nations that allow abortions.4 Abortion-related deaths are more frequent in countries with more restrictive abortion laws (34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths) than in countries with less restrictive laws (1 or fewer per 100,000 childbirths).1

World abortion laws. Reproduced with permission from the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The same correlation appears when a given country tightens or relaxes its abortion law. In Romania, for example, where abortion was available upon request until 1966, the abortion mortality ratio was 20 per 100,000 live births in 1960. New legal restrictions were imposed in 1966, and by 1989 the ratio reached 148 deaths per 100,000 live births. The restrictions were reversed in 1989, and within a year the ratio dropped to 68 of 100,000 live births; by 2002 it was as low as 9 deaths per 100,000 births (Figure 3). Similarly, in South Africa, after abortion became legal and available on request in 1997, abortion-related infection decreased by 52%, and the abortion mortality ratio from 1998 to 2001 dropped by 91% from its 1994 level.6

Live births and proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion. Reprinted from The Lancet, Vol. 368, Grimes DA et al, “Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic,” pp. 1908–1919, Copyright 2006, with permission from Elsevier.4

Less restrictive abortion laws do not appear to entail more abortions overall. The world’s lowest abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is legal and widely available but contraceptive use is high; in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, the rate is below 10 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. In contrast, in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contraceptive use is lower, the rates range from the mid-20s to 39 per 1000 women.3

Less restrictive abortion laws also do not guarantee safe abortions for those in need; better education and access to health care are also required. In India, unsafe illegal abortions persist despite India’s passage of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in the early 1970s. The act appeared to remove legal hindrances to terminating pregnancies in the underfunded (national) health care system, but women still turn to unqualified local providers for abortion. Clearly, the implications of the law never reached the population that most needed to rely on it.7 This example is also seen in Cambodia, where abortion is legally available on request and women often attempt to abort themselves before turning to hospital.8

When abortion is legal, available and affordable, pregnant people can:

• Stay in school
  

According to the report titled Accelerating progress toward the reduction of adolescent pregnancy in Latin America and the Caribbean prepared by UNFPA, UNICEF and PAHO/WHO, the region exhibits the second highest teen pregnancy rate, as about 15 percent of all pregnancies are to women under the age of 20. Central and South America show the highest rates, especially Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia and Venezuela. Pregnancy is also more common among indigenous and rural teens, less-educated women, and those living in poor households.
Teen pregnancy and parenthood are considered outside factors for school disengagement among secondary school students in Latin America, according to a CAF study. Teen pregnancy and early motherhood represent a cost of opportunity for women, given the lack of adequate conditions, poor understanding and inadequate approach to the problem, resulting in the interruption of formal education or definite dropout by adolescent girls. In fact, as much as 36 percent of school dropout cases in the region can be attributed to teen pregnancy or motherhood.

• Continue to work
  

To address the methodological limitations in previous studies, researcher Diana Greene Foster, a professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, designed a novel approach. Her team recruited women at abortion clinics, and compared outcomes among those who were just over the gestational limit and were denied an abortion with those who were just under the limit and had the procedure. Foster called the investigation the Turnaway Study, a reference to clinics turning some people away because they are too far along in their pregnancy. Its results have been described in 50 scientific papers, almost all of which were published in peer-reviewed journals from 2012 to 2020. And to date, the study is one of the most comprehensive in the field.

“The real innovation of the Turnaway Study,” Foster says, “was to take people who received an abortion and compare them to [those who had] the only other outcome that is available to somebody who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be—which is to carry that pregnancy to term.”

From 2008 to 2010 the study recruited nearly 1,000 women seeking abortions at 30 facilities in 21 states. Afterward the participants were interviewed by phone every six months for a span of five years. (While transgender men and nonbinary people also experience pregnancy and seek abortions, the Turnaway Study focused specifically on pregnant women.) The study found that, compared with women who received an abortion, those who wanted the procedure but were denied it fared worse in numerous aspects of their life, including financial situation, education, and physical and mental health.

Because of how it was able to isolate the effect of abortion access in a natural experiment, the Turnaway Study is recognized by the scientific community as an important contribution to the field, generating data that many scientists say should be considered by policy makers. “The rigid cutoff generates a situation where you’ve got women immediately on either side of the cutoff being extremely similar in characteristics and circumstances—but one can have an abortion and the other one can’t,” says Phillip Levine, a Wellesley College professor of economics, who was not involved with the study. “The Turnaway Study has the advantage of providing information that would otherwise be very difficult to ascertain regarding the impact of an abortion on women.”

• Avoid unhealthy relationships
  

The ability to leave unhealthy relationships proves to be a critical benefit for those able to choose abortion. Findings show abortion access can help a woman avoid violence in a controlling relationship in the United Kingdom, avoid becoming a second wife in Ghana, and end an unhealthy relationship in Colombia and Indonesia.

• Access abortion earlier
  

Finding money for transportation is a major cause of delayed abortions in Zambia, Northern Ireland and Australia. In Kenya, a requirement that patients pay prior to each procedure restricts access to prompt care, while in the U.S., health insurance issues cause delays. In Colombia, having to gain health insurance coverage through an external agency caused women to have their abortions later than they had desired.

When abortion is legal, available and affordable, communities have:

• Less poverty
  

In a 2005 study, 73% of women undergoing an abortion said not being able to afford a baby now was a reason for the abortion. That number rose to 81% for women below the federal poverty line.1 And while the abortion rate for American women declined by 8% between 2000 and 2008, among poor American women it increased by 18%.2

Pope Francis has seen a deeper link between the poor and the unborn. They are both among the first victims of a “throw-away society,” an attitude that sees people as disposable when they do not serve the selfish interests of those with more power.

Economic pressure and government abortion policy can combine to make things worse. One study found that poor women on Medicaid had twice the abortion rate of other women in their state. If the state’s Medicaid program paid for elective abortions, their abortion rate was more than four times that of other women.3 By offering “free” abortions, the government effectively places its thumb on the scale to favor death for the unborn child. By contrast, if these programs continue funding care for mothers and babies but stop funding abortion, abortions among women in the program decrease by as much as 35%.4

For many years policymakers have debated whether we should reduce abortions by fighting poverty or by passing pro-life laws. The question is misplaced. It is not a matter of either/or, but of both/and. We need to address both poverty and bad abortion policies.

So poverty can lead to an increase in abortions. How does abortion affect poverty?

Here we have to look at a trend called “the feminization of poverty.” Women are more likely than men to be poor, and to be in “deep poverty” (with an income less than half the federal poverty line). U.S. Census Bureau figures show that 5 million more women than men were poor in 2012. Almost 31% of households headed by a single woman are below the poverty line, compared to 6% of households headed by a married couple.5 Women head over 80% of single-parent households, and almost half of children living with only their mother are poor.6 So poverty in America is often a story of poor women and children, with no man in the house.

Some social observers once thought legalized abortion would solve this problem. If single poor women had access to abortion, they could avoid the hardships of trying to raise a child alone without resources. But after more than forty years of legalized abortion, out-of-wedlock births have increased, and the plight of poor women has worsened.

Beginning in the 1990s, groundbreaking research has found that the “technology shock” of widely available contraception and abortion has increased out-of-wedlock births. Previously, it was widely accepted that an unexpected pregnancy out-of-wedlock should lead a man to offer marriage.

Once contraception and abortion became widespread, the same pregnancy came to be seen as the woman’s responsibility – and as her problem. The man’s obligation can end with an offer to pay for abortion; if the woman refuses, she often soon finds herself to be a single mother. Today over 40% of births are out-of-wedlock.7

What if the woman does have the abortion? Besides suffering from psychological and spiritual burdens as an individual, she may find that the abortion has poisoned her relationships. The rate of marital breakups and relationship dissolution after an abortion is said to be between 40 and 75 percent, often related to a breakdown of intimacy and trust.8 And that often leaves women alone to care for themselves and any other children. In fact, sixty percent of abortions are performed on women who already had one or more children.

Marriage has been called “America’s greatest weapon against child poverty.”9 By the same token, anything that disrupts lasting relationships undermines the ability of women and men to join together to make a promising future for themselves and their children. In short, poverty can lead to abortion, and abortion can lead to more poverty.

• More opportunities for children
  

While historical evidence from Romania’s abortion ban showed a significant decline in educational and labor market achievements of those born during the ban, studies from both Sub-Saharan Africa and Taiwan linked abortion law liberalization to greater parental investment in girls’ schooling. In the United States, children born after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling faced lower infant mortality.

The risk of dying from childbirth is 50 to 130 times greater than dying from an abortion. One comprehensive analysis of maternal mortality around the world found that unsafe abortion accounts for a higher percentage (10%) of maternal mortality in Latin America and the Caribbean than in any other region, followed closely by Sub-Saharan Africa; both these regions have highly restrictive abortion laws. In contrast, unsafe abortion causes fewer than 1% of maternal deaths in East Asia, a region with less restrictive abortion laws.

How Does The Death Of A Parent Affect A Child (THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE OF MOTHER'S WHO ALREADY HAVE A CHILD AS WELL):
An early loss of parents usually increases the probability of inadequate child care2 and worsens the family’s economic status3.
In some families, that means increased pressures for the grieving child to take on the responsibilities of the dead parent and to isolate from friends. In others, The death of their parents will result in the child’s poor psychosocial well-being, changes in behavior, increase in stress and sleep disturbances4.
The psychological effects of losing a mother or a father during formative years are significant. Children who experience parental loss are at a higher risk for many negative outcomes, including mental issues (e.g., depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, post-traumatic stress symptoms), shorter schooling, less academic success, lower self-esteem5, and more sexual risk behaviors6.
Given the negative long-term effects associated with parental death, it is imperative that society helps children grieve in a healthy way. However, cultural beliefs and persistent misunderstandings are often standing in the way of appropriate support for children and doing them a disservice.

Less strain on health systems

Studies from Ghana and Nigeria show how access to safe abortion for 60% of women that would otherwise get an unsafe abortion translates to many years of life saved: almost 11,000 years of life saved per 100,000 procedures in Nigeria and 17,500 years of life saved per 100,000 procedures in Ghana. In Burkina Faso, safe abortion services would only cost 12% of what health facilities spent treating complications of unsafe abortion.

When abortion is legal, available and affordable, countries have:

• More workers and prosperity
  
• Less teen pregnancy and marriage
  
• Less crime
  
• Less strain on public resources
  

Abortion access = A crucial benefit for mothers
Research from around the world shows that the ability to decide when and whether to have another child helps mothers take better care of themselves and the children they already have.
One study from the United States, where 61% of women who have abortions are already mothers and more than half of whom have two or more children, provided the case example of Angel [a pseudonym]:

Nowhere in the description did we agree to a 1 round forfeit equals a loss policy.