Access to abortion services is a fundamental human right.

While I won't deny that there are costs associated with receiving an abortion, the alternative is carrying the pregnancy to term. Between the two, which is more expensive? Abortions cost somewhere around $600-$800 [1], compared to the $18,865 cost of giving birth [2]. It isn't really a comparable cost, even if the abortion is given later in the pregnancy. Complications in abortions arise around 2% of the time [3] compared to a 8-10% rate for pregnancies [4]. In addition, pregnancy related complications can be much more severe. Early trimester abortions are referred to as similar to a heavy period [5], and recovery time is around 1-2 days [6] (compared with 6-8 weeks, or up to a year postpartum recovery, along with many symptoms such as postpartum depression, hair loss, and a variety of other physical affects, some of which can be permanent. [7]). Again, although I can't deny that there are some risks, the alternative is far more dangerous. I'm also curious about what sort of chaos you are referring to.

Adoption is an alternative for parenthood, not pregnancy. Pregnancy can be dangerous, particularly for those with underlying health conditions, and the maternal mortality rate in the United States continues to increase. In addition, the foster care system in the United States is poor, with 40-85% of children in the system diagnosed with some type of mental disorder (compared to 20% of the general population) [8]. I agree that those who bear the child should bear the choice and responsibility, which is why I believe that abortion is something that should not have bans placed on it.

Why should economic issues be a higher priority than women's health and rights? Additionally, Roe v. Wade was in place for around 50 years, and yet people used birth control during that time period, and I haven't heard anything about economic issues stemming from it. Birth control is also used to help people manage period symptoms rather than being solely for pregnancy prevention, and abortion tends to be considered as more of a fail-safe in case those methods fail. Speaking practically, birth control is easier to access and less expensive than an abortion. Why would someone use abortion as a birth control alternative? I also highly doubt that it is a large enough industry to have a huge affect on the economy. Again, abortion access was available and federally protected in the U.S. for 50 years, and yet these problems haven't become reality.

I don't believe in time limits for abortions. Those who know they don't want to go through a pregnancy would get an abortion early on before consciousness has developed, and late term abortions are used solely for when complications arise and there is no other safe option. Removing access to late-term abortions could put the health of many women at risk, and is a decision that the woman should make along with the help of medical professionals who can explain the options and risks. I'd like to see a source about babies developing immunity for the procedure. This is not something that is happening/has happened.

Yes, but imagine what one person could do in 9 months, not to mention the millions of people per month this could ensue.

I agree, but I said that statement regarding your many statements about how most aren't ready for adulthood.

If the economy goes down, everything goes down.

Yes, I do.

The point I was trying to get at is that although a good point, what I'm saying is, first, calling abortion a fundamental right is an overstep, the fundamental right is freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and stuff like that. People have had wars, this fundament right, and although abortion is an important thing, to call it fundamental is a step too far (also, you've made some good points)

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Could you please elaborate?

In this statement, I am curious about your choice of words with "adulthood." Parenthood and adulthood are two very different things, and while many people may be a successful adult, that does not equate to being ready for parenthood. I am not in any way advocating for people to get an abortion, and if someone chooses to carry the pregnancy to term and go down the route of adoption, I absolutely respect that choice. While I can agree that adoption is in fact an alternative for parenthood, using adoption as an argument against abortion access negates the reality that the foster care system in this country is honestly quite terrible, and it negates the risks of pregnancy.

This is a very broad statement, but I agree with it as a whole. However I noticed that you continued to fail to provide any sources or additional arguments about the reinstatement of abortion access resulting in an economic collapse. As I stated before, is birth control a large enough industry for that? Is the need to promote economic growth of the birth control industry an adequate reason to inhibit women from potentially life-saving healthcare? Was birth control not used during the 50 years Roe v. Wade was in place? Why would women use abortion as an alternative for birth control methods? Again, did that happen during the previous 50 years? I also noticed you didn't provide any backing for your previous statement that "if abortion becomes more common, there's a risk that babies could develop immunity to the procedures used for abortion." It's a statement that has no scientific backing (again, if you'd like to provide some, please include your sources). Abortion is not a strong enough evolutionary pressure for this to occur, and did not develop over the last 50 years.

So I suppose the core of this debate then is not whether abortion rights should be infringed upon, but my choice of wording in the title. That's not what I was trying to get at when posting this debate, but I suppose this is a valid conversation to have. First of all, you provided several examples that I agree are fundamental rights, but you failed to provide a definition for what constitutes a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are defined by Cornell's Law School as "a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment" [1]. If we stick with this definition, then abortion access was a fundamental right 2 years ago, but no longer is one. Other sources (a quick google search for "fundamental rights" will provide several) define it as laws that secure human dignity regardless of race, religion, or other classifications. This is a definition that I personally prefer, and the one that I believe many people also use. If we were to break down the term, the definition of fundamental is considered to be the "forming a necessary base or core; of central importance." I believe the second two more accurately define "fundamental right," as the first definition relies entirely on what country/region/time period you are in. Please inform me if you disagree with my take on this, but for now I'll stick with the last two definitions. Is the right to bodily autonomy not something that preserves human dignity? Or something that forms a necessary core of rights? Limiting abortion access has drastic impacts on the opportunities, health, and lives of women. You didn't provide much argument as to why abortion shouldn't fall under this category, so I would like to hear what your reasoning behind this viewpoint is.

I am glad we can have a cordial discussion on this topic, and look forward to reading your response.

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right#:~:text=Fundamental%20rights%20are%20a%20group,of%20protection%20from%20government%20encroachment.