Abortion should be illegal.

My opponent says it is "obvious" that abortions will decrease if illegal. But remember the study cited in the NY Times. "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely." [1] Outlawing abortions does nothing but make them more dangerous. I have three responses to all of my opponents arguments about how even legal abortions have side effects. 1. Making abortions illegal won't decrease their number, but simply make them more dangerous. 2. Legal medical procedures require informed consent, a medical principal meaning that the patient is informed of all the side effects and allowed to make her own decision. Illegal procedures do not result in women being informed of potential side effects. 3. The Guttmacher Institute evidence my opponent already cited in a previous round says that women are hospitalized after abortions only 0.3% of the time, meaning all of the physical side effects he cites are extremely rare (like pelvic inflammatory infection). The Bernadell Techinical Bulletin evidence my opponent cites is actually about how illegal abortions (with coat hangars) can result in uterine perforations. Legal abortions would avoid this risk. On the psychological side effects, if empirical evidence reveals that women will all still seek abortions, these will still exist but will be worse if the operation is more traumatic and if society tells her that what she is doing is wrong by making it illegal. At the end of the day, knowing the side effects, a woman should be allowed to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. People usually are better at deciding for themselves what is in their own self-interest, rather than being proselytized to by the State. Potential person My opponent claims that a "potential person" starts when the sperm hits the egg. This is arbitrary. A potential person could be born whenever we have sex without contraception. The Catholic Church used a similar argument against birth control: without intervention, sex will result in a potential person. If we believe that all potential people must become actual people, then we should stop using contraception. I'm not paranoid about there not being enough resources. We already don't have enough food to provide for everyone in the world, which is why millions starve to death each year. Let's provide for these actual people before trying to birth more potential people. It may cost $320 to have an abortion, which is small compared to the million dollars it takes to raise a child to adulthood in the United States. In contrast, rather than spending so much opposing abortion, anti-abortionists could instead use the money to save actual lives – that's my argument. My opponent never answers my question as to whether fertility treatments should be disallowed because fertility doctors create 3 potential people (fetuses) to implant because they know that statistically, only one will "take" (survive). This meets his definition of murder. Exceptional cases My opponent is still agreeing that in the rare case that the fetus is trying to grow in the fallopian tube, he would ban abortion and let both mother and fetus die when the fetus grows too big and ruptures the fallopian tube, causing massive internal bleeding. My opponent seems to think the child could still survive in this case, but a full sized baby cannot grow inside the tiny fallopian tube. In conclusion, empirical studies looking both at our nation's past and at countries where abortion is currently illegal show that making abortion illegal does not decrease the incidence of abortion, but just makes the abortions performed more dangerous. Sex education is a much more effective method of decreasing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. Women have legitimate reasons for seeking abortions, mostly because they cannot afford to have the child (to take time off work or to raise it). Women need abortion as a medical procedure if the fetus is killing them (like in ectopic pregnancies). In addition, abortion is not murder; it ends the life of an undifferentiated mass of cells (in most cases) that cannot feel consciousness or pain. 88% of abortions are performed during the first trimester and over 50% in the first 8 weeks. [2] The body commits "abortion" naturally when we have scarce resources, meaning the mother does not have enough nutrients for both herself and the fetus. This is the same case when a mother cannot afford to have the baby. Adoption is not a viable alternative. My opponent keeps brushing off the fact that 75% of kids in foster care get raped. This rate is much higher than for the general population. The vast majority of children who would be created if abortions completely stopped are considered unadoptable by most people and would end up in foster care. But foster care could not handle that many children. ProChoice.org reports that there are 1.3 million abortions per year in the United States. [3] The foster care system could not handle an influx of 1.3 million children per year, and the quality of life would further decline in foster care if this were to happen. Let's first learn to care for the people who are already here in this world now. There are currently 17 million food insecure children in the U.S. [4] There are clearly limited resources in this country. Let's ensure that all children in the U.S. lead good lives before indiscriminately trying to adopt policies that result in many more kids. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.prochoice.org... [3] Ibid [4] http://www.frac.org...