Should abortion be allowed

It seems my opponent has used the previous round to attack my arguments, rather than building their own. The only argument they have given us so far is that a full life is worth more than a childs life. This is a valid point. However one must take into consideration the quality of that life. Is a child that grows up to be a miserable drug addict worth more than someone who has a happy life, even if it is already half over? One cannot simplify the value of a life to how long that life was lived. You must take into account factors like quality of life, and overall human happiness. My opponent states that the only reason abortion should be allowed is in the case of severely disabled children. This implies that woman who are raped should be forced into having their child, and reliving the trauma that caused the child to exist every day. This also implies that mothers who will die if they are to have their child should be forced to have it. Those woman would be forced to die. It implies that crack addicted woman living on the streets should be forced to give birth to crack addicted babies. Why? Simply because the child would live a longer life than the mother. I disagree with this type of thinking completely. Morality cannot be boiled down to, whoever can live longer is more valuable. That stringent moral frame is dangerous to operate in. On to defending my previous arguments: Previously I had stated that using condoms was a way of preventing life, and can be compared to birth control or abortion. My opponent stated "The birth control argument fails most importantly for failing to recognize the difference between "failing to create potential", and "destroying already existing potential"" This is a flawed argument. Any fertile man and woman have the potential to create a child. Abortion, birth control and condoms are all designed for the same purpose - to prevent birth. Abortion is a means of enjoying the fun of sex without the consequences of a child. Condom's are designed for the exact same purpose, so is any type of birth control. When I pointed out that someone who cannot make decisions for themselves, (like a child or someone in a vegetative state) the right to make their decisions is then given to their next of kin. My opponent states that the laws regarding the fate of someone in a vegetative state are widely contested. This is true. However, the laws were made that way because the majority of people believe it was the correct thing to do. However this misses the point of my original argument entirely. My original point was alluding to the fact that a mother should have the right to choose what she does with her own body, at least until the fetus has developed the capacity to feel pain or know it exists. About the population control argument: My opponent has pointed out that when a population reaches the maximum size it can sustain it does not simply die out, it reaches it's "carrying capacity". This is correct, I should have worded this better. I was not implying that everyone would die. When any population reaches carrying capacity, it does so by first exceeding it's capacity, until natural forces such as disease, hunger, poverty, and general bad quality of life kill of the excess. In this case the excess being humans. Obviously this is something to be avoided. Tell me con, according to your moral framework what is better, 7 billion people living average lives, or 15 billion people suffering due to overpopulation? The only point my opponent failed to address was my second one "can you murder what is not yet alive". I pointed out that a fetus doesn't know it exists at this point, it cannot feel pain, and it has no consciousness. At this point the fetus is essentially a growth. The inevitable argument against this point is that preventing human life is bad. This will always lead to the conclusion that birth control, oral sex, and any other type of method used to have sex and prevent life are equally as wrong