Should abortion be allowed

My opponent seems to think that the quantity of arguments is important in a debate, not the quality. This is demonstrably false, as anyone can fabricate thousands of worthless arguments that do not prove a point, whereas even one that does is superior to them all. Now to examine my opponent's response to the utilitarian math. While my opponent may think that is easier to represent a higher number as a happier life, this is not what I was trying to demonstrate. What I was demonstrating was that the decrease in quality of life for a mother who does not have an abortion is less than the decrease in quality of life for the aborted fetus. Thus, the higher numbers do not represent lower values, as my opponent has insinuated. Rather, it is like this: If G is the level of happiness in the rest of the world when the woman must make their decision for abortion, QA is the quality of life decrease for the aborted fetus, and QN is the decrease for the woman who does not get an abortion, these are the resulting happiness levels: If she gets an abortion, the result will be GA. If she does not, the result will be GN. GA = G - QA GN = G - QN As I have proven in the last round, QN < QA, as even my opponent has conceded this. Since G is constant, we have proven thusly that GN > GA, meaning that there is now mathematical proof that the overall happiness is greater when one does not have an abortion. Lastly, my opponent has stated that it is absurd to represent the values of life to a mathematical equation. However my opponent has not objected to Utilitarian morality, which represents the moral value of something in terms of happiness. Happiness is a one-dimensional property, and thus it can be represented as a variable in an equation. John Stuart Mill himself developed means for comparing and weighing happiness. What my argument about the man in Canada and the woman in New Zealand is that they cannot create a child, thus your absolute statement that any fertile man and any fertile woman can create a child is false. I even explained this in my contention previously in the last round. The "Mother's Right" argument only holds so long as we assume a fetus to be part of a mother's body. I reject this statement, as a fetus is simply dependent upon its mother resources. You might say that being dependent upon its mother's resources means that it is part of its mother's body. This is incorrect, because children are also dependent upon their parents but we clearly do not consider them part of their mother's body and most certainly do not grant parents permission to murder their children. The problem with the overpopulation argument is that it ignores two very important facets of human existence. Firstly, increased automation vastly increases the amount of resources available to humans throughout history. With the advent of increased resources production and programmable labor bots, a future of plenty is fast approaching. There is not historical precedent for the kind of technology that is soon to become thousands of times more productive than our current laborers. That has problems of its own, namely unemployment, but the lack of resources is simply not a part of our future. This leads into my second point, distribution of resources. Even without the future of plenty ahead, there is still enough resources available to humans today to cover the cost for all the humans alive. The problem lies in the resource distribution system, in which large amounts of resources are concentrated into a small percent of the population. Fixing this problem will take time, but needless to say, our current resources can support a large population of billions. In summary, my opponent's arguments do not properly apply to the abortion issue and the math of Utilitarianism supports not aborting a fetus.