Abortion

Life begins at conception, so unborn babies are human beings with a right to life. Upon
fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged
throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome
Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome,
stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being
is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... The human nature of the human being from conception to old
age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."

Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of
Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School
of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight
weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first
trimester." [18] According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology
and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks
of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and
excruciating pain." [24] Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier
work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus,
"We see [in an ultrasound image] the child's mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of
a child threatened imminently with extinction."

Abortions cause psychological damage. A peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian

Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk
for subsequent depression." [44] A peer-reviewed study published in BMC Medicine found that women
who underwent an abortion had "significantly higher" anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and
Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination. [69] A peer-reviewed study published
by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted
were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. [26] A study published in the
British Medical Journal reported that the mean annual suicide rate amongst women who had an abortion
was 34.7 per 100,000, compared with a mean rate of 11.3 per 100,000 in the general population of
women. [45] A Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found
that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression.

Abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies. Instead of having the option to abort, women
should give their unwanted babies to people who cannot conceive. The percentage of infants given up for
adoption in the United States declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 0.5% of those born in 2014.
[53] [203] As a result of the lack of women putting their children up for adoption, the number of US infant
adoptions dropped from about 90,000 in 1971 to 18,329 in 2014. [46] [203] Around 2.6 million Americans
are seeking to adopt children.

Selective abortion based on genetic abnormalities (eugenic termination) is overt discrimination.

Physical limitations don't make those with disabilities less than human. The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 [54] provides civil rights protection to people born with disabilities so they can lead fulfilling
lives. The National Down Syndrome Society states that "people with Down syndrome live at home with
their families and are active participants in the educational, vocational, social, and recreational activities
of the community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their
communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways." [66] The increase in abortions of babies with
Down syndrome (over 80% of women choose to abort Down syndrome babies [70]) reduced the Down
syndrome population by 15% between 1989 and 2005.

Women should not be able to use abortion as a form of contraception. It is immoral to kill an
unborn child for convenience. [116] The Guttmacher Institute reported that 45% of all women having
abortions every year have had at least one previous abortion, [190] while 8.6% of abortions reported to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2014 were undergone by women who had three or
more previous abortions. [176] This suggests that many women are using abortion as a contraceptive
method. [78] Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt, PhD, wrote that after abortion was legalized,
"Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent, indicating that many women
were using abortion as a method of birth control, a crude and drastic sort of insurance policy."

The original text of the Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by doctors when swearing to
practice medicine ethically, forbids abortion. One section of the classical version of the oath reads: "I will
not give a woman a pessary [a device inserted into the vagina] to cause an abortion." The modern version
of the Hippocratic Oath, written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, still effectively forbids doctors from performing
abortions in the line, "Above all, I must not play at God."

Abortion promotes a culture in which human life is disposable. The legalization of abortion sends
a message that human life has little value. [144] Pope Francis condemned "'the throwaway culture'" in
Jan. 2014, stating that "what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human
beings themselves, who are discarded as 'unnecessary'. For example, it is frightful even to think there are
children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day." [143] House Representative Randy
Hultgren (R-IL) wrote in Jan. 2014 that "When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the
idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences
us." [36]

Abortion may lead to future medical problems for the mother. A study published by the peer-
reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages
are attributed to a prior history of induced abortion, and stated that "Induced abortion by vacuum
aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy."
[34] A Chinese study published in the peer-reviewed Indian Journal of Cancer found an association
between breast cancer and a history of abortions [71]. A study published in the peer-reviewed Cancer
Causes and Control found that abortion "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer"
and that "the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of [abortions] increases.

Allowing abortion conflicts with the unalienable right to life

Australia adoption April 2018. Ratio of 2/1000 , England and Wales 7/1000 and US 30/1000 .
Single, LGBTQ community.

4-6 weeks after the abortion, and you can get pregnant again soon after the abortion.

Euthanasia

Capacity, Competency
Mental Capacity

Competency is a term used to describe the legally determined ability to perform a given function. In the
process of obtaining informed consent, competency is the major issue in determining whether a person
has the ability to agree to, or refuse, a procedure. Technically, only a judge can determine competency. If
a person is deemed incompetent to make a decision, then a substituted decision maker is appointed by
the court to make such decisions for the patient. This is often a family member who has a clear
understanding of the patient's long-held beliefs and who can use this knowledge to best “substitute”
judgment to make decisions that are in line with the patient's wishes. Capacity is a clinical assessment. It
can be made by a psychiatrist or by another physician, and it is a clinical determination of a patient's ability
to function in certain areas. Most frequently, psychiatrists are called upon to assess a patient's capacity
to agree to (or to refuse) a certain medical intervention as part of the informed consent process. If a
person is found to lack capacity to make medical decisions, a decision may then be “bumped up” to the
legal system to assess the patient's competency. A judge ruling on competency will usually—but not
always—agree with and use the capacity assessment by the psychiatrist to make a determination of
competency. If the judge agrees with the psychiatrist's capacity assessment and finds the patient
incompetent to make such a decision, then a substituted decision maker will be appointed by the court.
In emergent medical situations, in which treatment decisions must be made before legal proceedings can
occur, physicians can go ahead with emergent medical care for a patient who lacks capacity to make
decisions regarding that care. In practice, if the patient has already appointed a health care proxy, consent
(leading to refusal or acceptance of a procedure or treatment) will usually be obtained through the
decision maker if the patient is found incompetent. Importantly, capacity assessments assess a person's
ability to perform a certain function at the time of evaluation. Capacity assessments cannot be made for
past or future dates. For example, the psychiatric consultant in Mr. A's case could not make an assessment
about the patient's capacity from the previous night (though, based on the data, could postulate about
Mr. A's capacity), nor could she make an assessment of the patient's future capacity. Given that the cause
of incapacity may be treatable or may resolve spontaneously, a determination of incapacity on one day
does not imply indefinite incapacity with regard to that decision or function. In addition, capacity
assessments should be made for a specific decision or function. Frequently, patients have the capacity to
make certain medical decisions but do not have the capacity to make others, so an evaluation for the
“capacity to make medical decisions” is too general to be useful. The consultant should clarify with the
consultee the specific decisions or functions that need to be assessed. In this case, the specific decision
surrounded the patient's capacity to refuse a LP.

Vegetable State/ Unable to make Decision

Policy Debate, Life is something we cannot obtain without own will it’s the very essence of humanity and
as is the very basis of every right. Sanctity of life

"The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the
Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it,
nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'... In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the
Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. For
the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature.
As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one's
consent to live does not deprive one's living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle
restraining the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own
compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and
therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion."

"It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social
inequality and prejudice that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of society, including
health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference are the poor, minorities,
and those who are least educated and least empowered. This risk does not reflect a judgment that
physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than the rest of society - only that they are
not exempt from the prejudices manifest in other areas of our collective life. While our society aspires to
eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing,
education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with
assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the practices,
whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which
they will be operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable."

Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are
unachievable, but there is direct evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect...
When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence
that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of dollars lavished
on propaganda, most people do not have living wills... Second, people who sign living wills have generally
not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-and-death decisions... Third, drafters
of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately... Fourth,
living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth,
living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences."

The American College of Physicians (ACP) stated the following in its Sep. 19, 2017 Annals of Internal
Medicine position paper, "Ethics and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide: An American College
of Physicians Position Paper": "On the basis of substantive ethics, clinical practice, policy, and other
concerns articulated in this position paper, the ACP does not support legalization of physician-assisted
suicide. It is problematic given the nature of the patient–physician relationship, affects trust in the
relationship and in the profession, and fundamentally alters the medical profession's role in society.
Furthermore, the principles at stake in this debate also underlie medicine's responsibilities regarding
other issues and the physician's duties to provide care based on clinical judgment, evidence, and ethics.
Society's focus at the end of life should be on efforts to address suffering and the needs of patients and
families, including improving access to effective hospice and palliative care."

Physician-assisted suicide does damage to patients who are in very difficult situations. It does damage to
the medical profession. It compromises the sacred trust between physician and patient, which should be
based on healing, not based on killing."