OP, you are wrong. I can prove it, too. Here is a chart: [url]http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html[/url] The sources he used are at the bottom. Here is another chart: [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/22/thirteen-charts-that-explain-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/[/url] Look at chart number two. In the first link, which has clear sources and is reputable, we can see that abortions began a huge rise after 1970. They have since fallen in recent years, but lets ignore that part of the chart for the time being. In the second link's chart, we see two landmark events marked. The first is when abortion laws were liberalized in 15 states. The second is Roe v. Wade, the supreme court decision on abortion. As you can see, the number of abortions clearly increased after these two events. I do acknowledge that this just indicates correlation, but it is pretty clear that legalizing abortions does not decrease the rate of abortions. In addition, you will see that the chart indicates that abortions continued their downward trend in 2014, when "obamacare" went into effect. While we still need more data to form an educated opinion, it seems (at this point) that greater healthcare did not change any trends. If you wish to take the charts trends as indicating causation, then you need to admit that legalizing abortion leads to more abortions. Then you would be able to claim that healthcare decreases abortions. If you examine the charts in their pure state, however, you can't make a conclusion about either. More data is needed. Since these charts clearly discuss abortion rates, you can't determine if either of these things are true. Now, lets talk about your charts. In one of your charts, it makes the claim that more liberal abortion laws lead to less abortions. You will notice that, unfortunately, the areas in the left side of the chart are not areas that any one would define as first world. Their high rate of abortions can be marked up to any number of things, including a lack of access to medicine (something that you claimed was paramount), and a lack of sexual education. Making the widespread claim that abortion rates are higher in the left-side countries because they have less liberal laws is not something that can be proved with one simple chart. Again, correlation, not causation. Lets also talk about the term "safe abortions". Using this term is like me saying, "people are going to die to guns anyway, so I think we should provide mass killers with premium weaponry, so that it is safer for the shooters when they are killing people". Abortions, from the pro-life view (and I'll discuss why that Idea is the correct one lower on in the post) are murder. Making it safer for murders to occur is not an objective. If a mother commits an abortion, they should be imprisoned. Simple as that. The safety of the innocent is paramount in this case. I do agree with you about adjusting the adoption agencies of the nation, and the childcare policies. These need to get better, so people that grow up with these services get adequate care. So, here's the last part. Why the pro-life view is the right one: - Let me ask you a question: How do you differentiate people from other people? How about from animals? Simple answer: DNA. Each person has their own, unique DNA, which is separate from the DNA of others. Human DNA is also different than animal DNA. If we were to ask: Is X a human person? Two subsequent questions would follow. Does X have human DNA? Does X have its own unique DNA? If the answer to these questions is yes, then you have a distinct and unique person. According to our constitution, each person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion clearly violates these rights. The dependence of this new person on the mother has no relevance in this discussion, because children are dependent on their parents well after they are born. Should we allow mothers to kill their two year-olds? Three year-olds? Obviously not. -"But a woman has a right to her own body". As we have established, a child who is in the fetus stage has a different DNA than the mother who carries him/her. This means that the child is not part of the mothers body. The child might be inside the mother's body, but it is not the mother's body. While a woman does have a right to her own body, she does not have the right to the body of another, even if that other is her child. -"But the child isn't alive". Lets say that the child isn't alive for a second. The dead still have certain rights. When someone dies, you can't just strip their corpse of everything, and parade their body around on your car. For more info, google rights of the dead. The laws vary from state to state, here is an overview of the ones in Texas: [url]http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/burial-cremation-laws-texas.html[/url]. Assume, for a second, that a dead person could come back to life. Would you deny that person the ability to come back to life? Should we stop providing defibrillators so that, once a heart stops, a person can be declared dead and stay that way? Is it not the right of any person, living or dead, to life? If they can achieve life, then you have to let them. They, after all, have a right to life. While I do believe that a child in the womb begins life at birth, this question is irrelevant, because any person has the right to life. -"But making it illegal won't do anything". Here's the thing- Abortion, as I have established, is wrong. We have a responsibility to take legal action to stop it, and to punish those who commit the action. Not making this illegal is like giving everyone access to the latest military tech. It is wrong to do it. We have to take action to stop this injustice.