Should abortion be allowed

Firstly, I would like to establish what standard of morality I will be using in this debate. My framework of morality will be Utilitarianism, as defined by John Stuart Mill: "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so the other sources of our experiment. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require that happiness is a good: that each person"s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons." Thusly is defined my standard for morality. With that being said, I shall now outline the exceptions that I mentioned previously. The only incidences in which the action of abortion prevents more harm than it causes is when the child has a genetic disorder that would be debilitating or incapacitating and prevent it from living a normal life. However these disorders are incredibly rare and do not apply to the general rule I am arguing for in place of an absolute one. Now onto my opponent's contentions. Most of my opponent's points are defeated in light of the fact that a woman who has already lived part of her life has much less to lose than a fetus that has lived none or very little of it. This already tips the scales of Utilitarianism in favor of preserving the life of the fetus. Additionally, most points only consider the possibility of worsening a woman's life, which has far less weight in terms of suffering than of destroying an entire life with certainty. Bearing this rather heavy imbalance in mind, let us examine the applicable arguments. This defeats the "What if the woman was raped", "What if the baby will grow up in poverty", and "What if the woman's life is on the line" arguments, as in each case an entire life is worth more than part of one, in addition to the other imbalances mentioned above. The birth control argument fails most importantly for failing to recognize the difference between "failing to create potential", and "destroying already existing potential". A sperm and egg cell by themselves do not have the potential to create a child. It is only when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell that potential has been created and thus removing it is destroying potential. Birth control merely prevents the creation of this potential, which is a separate matter entirely. This also similarly applies to the second contention, as my opponent again fails to make this important distinction. The right to decide the fate of a vegetative loved one is fairly contested. For this point to be relevant my opponent would need to demonstrate that this right is grounded in morality. My opponent seems to have a misunderstanding of ecology. When a species reaches the maximum size it can sustain, it does not simply "die out". Instead, it reaches what is called "carrying capacity" and stabilizes. (1) In summation, my opponent's contentions fail to address the moral standards for the issue, and equivocate terms as well as misuse scientific and political ideas. For further reading, I suggest Don Marquis' "Why Abortion is Wrong". (2) (1)https://www.wou.edu... (2)http://books.google.com...