I’ve noticed quite a few threads in Great Debates which cover the abortion controversy. The statistics, and the reasoning seem to vary widely, but I have noticed that even secularists seem to come down on completely different sides of the fence on this, due to disagreement on what constitutes a human being.
I would like to recommend the (ongoing) Carrier-Roth debate:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-roth/
Both are arguing from a secular perspective on the issue of abortion. I think the advantages of an internet debate like this one, with one month between rebuttals is that it allows more careful research then in a traditional debate, or usenet forum. This reduces the tendency to win through pure rhetoric.
After reading it (if anyone does) I would be interested in hearing what objections people have. Perhaps you could even e-mail some of them to Roth if you support her views, since the 2nd rebuttal was a tad thin on facts and response to Carrier’s challenges.
One interesting point I thought was made by Carrier in the 2nd rebuttal. Abortion is actually critical for population control since the pill, IUDs, Norplant, and various morning-after pills all induce abortions.
Hm? That’s surprising to you?
What did you think they did, prevent conception? 
That’s for condoms…
Technically speaking, Kybertechnicist(or whatever) is correct. All of the above contraceptions prevent implantation of a fertalized ovum…technically abortion.
Aww. Like you couldn’t have cut ‘n’ pasted my name.
Not that avalongod is that much shorter.
Yep, I find it interesting since many posters realize that most abortions occur far before consciousness or any relatively complex brain exists in the fetus. Therefore, they argue all abortions are wrong because, as Ms. Roth attempts to defend in the above debate, there is the potential for life.
Of course, these people ignore the fact that potential lives are being aborted all the time, both naturally and by contraceptives. Yet, many many more (in fact, too many for our planet to bear) are still coming into being. Hopefully, ones with better genes (natural abortions often occur because of mutations), or better chance at a decent family and upbringing (many elective abortions are due to the person preferring to wait until they are capable of properly raising an infant).
Better genes? You mean bluer eyes and lighter hair?
How about working to reduce or end the need for abortions by elevating motherhood, establishing a better sex education program that involve the parents, establishing better pre-natal counseling and care, and reducing the impulses to doing it by toning down the media and peer pressure. No, you will not eliminate abortions by merely banning it, but you can reduce the likelihood by assuming that any person will have sex in her lifetime, and should be thoroughly prepared for the event.
Abortion as birth control, bah! Not even Planned Parenthood advocates that.
You seem to have missed the point entirely.
I stated natural abortions. As in miscarriages.
Those ones do occur when mutation is severe. Don’t try to accuse me of some sort of extreme eugenics program.
Furthermore, despite the amount of training you would give, sex still will occur, because, strangely enough, people enjoy doing it.
If the contraceptives fail other forms of abortion should be there.
Also, you’ll notice that “abortion as birth control” was not what I had said. I had repeated the excellent point Carrier made that those forms of birth control listed were really abortificants.
I would strongly recommend you read the highly interesting debate at the link I gave in my first post.