Abortion should be illegal

DEFENSES a.) Safety and Abortion Here, Pro claims that (a.) South Africa is an invalid example of how abortion laws affected abortion safety in the country. Pro claims that "[although HIV accounts for a little less than half of all the maternal deaths] this hasn't been demonstrated to account for a quadrupling of maternal deaths, which is a huge increase." However, a very small minority of this "quadrupling" has been because of abortion. From 2008 to 2010, 4,867 maternal deaths were recorded: of these, only a tiny minority (23% of the 186 septic related deaths) directly was the result of unsafe abortion. [1] Apart from this, although around two rounds late, Pro's graph, which was cited in R2 S1 presents a incomplete picture of the effects of Roe v. Wade. A new graph, released by Guttmacher, shows another trend, in which abortion related deaths in the United States dropped by 20 times within 10 years, [2] whilst in the graph the opposition cited, abortion dropped only around seven times in 14 years [3]. Apart from this, when he claims that the government has no business in a women's choice to willingly endanger her own body, doesn't that show that the government should not screw around with abortion? b.) Frequency Pro in his rebuttal that "the average cost to travel to a pro-choice state to get an abortion is $643," which somehow refutes the fact that many women get extra-territorial abortions. He does this by quoting a paper by Mr. Joyce which predicts that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, a 14% decrease in abortion would be experienced. There are many problems with Mr. Joyce's studies. He uses only New York statistics. However, California has twice as many abortions as New York yearly. Moreover, the decline in abortion rates are present even in liberal abortion states, which hence weakens the argument that more restrctions would lead to less abortion. [4] And although 87% of all known abortions perfomed outside of state are perfomed in New York, it might also be the case that many more are performed in California, but due to being surrounded via conservative states, these cases are under-reported. And even Mr. Joyce offers some devastating critique of overturning Roe v. Wade: "a reversal of Roe is unlikely to cause drastic increases in unintended childbearing, but it would likely have a significant impact on those with the least resources and wherewithal to adjust." Pro's arguments are based on the Rational Choice Theory. However, via positing that rationality is the only thing that effects choice making, he is ignoring the other factors: progressive sex education, availability of conception and less taboos concerning intercourse definitely effected the abortion rate. And since abortion rates are declining in both conservative and liberal states, we can assume that a factor other than restrictive legislation is present. c.) Socio-Economic Effects of Abortion Pro's claim here has been simple: Pro has not doubted the empirical evidence, but has doubted the logic of it, as the same logic is used to justify genocide and infanticide. Again, Pro is blackmailing us into accepting his conclusions. There is a difference between unwanted and problematic children. We are not getting rid of "problematic" children, so much as we are geting rid of unwanted children. Unwanted children will be problematic, no matter what: problematic children have a glimmer of hope at the end of the railway track of life. And although I would agree, that in ancient Rome, infanticide was used as an ancient abortion, we are now able to prevent the suffering of children in later life without actually effecting their feelings (i.e. causing pain). Pro's arguments are, in this respect, mainly ad hominems, faulty comparisons and blackmails that do not doubt the actual empirical evidence. OBJECTIONS a.) Rights Pro's argument is based on three things: that (a.) since the Constitution lacks definitions, then we should consult a "legal dictionary", that (b.) the SCOTUS occasionally misinterprets the Constitution, and that (c.) the UVVA protects fetuses and provides legal personhood for the fetus. Let us start with the Constitution's definitions. Pro argues that there is no stable definition of what is meant by person, because all references in the Constitution pertaining to "persons" (apart from the 5th and the 14th Amendment) connotes pre-natal interpretations. However, this logic would equally be damaging: what if the words "the United States" sometimes meant the original colonies, and other times meant the colonies after the Louisiana purchase. The "United States" is a term taken for granted in the Constitution: it means a geo-political body in the US, which includes the many states. Pro then argues that a legal dictionary is a more coherent body of evidence than the SCOTUS. He presents no defence for this. That is because, even among legal dictionaries, the definition of “Person” is unclear. The definition Pro used comes from “The People's Law Dictionary.” However, in Bouvier's Legal Dictionary, we are specifically told that "In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms...A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes." [7] Even in US law, this definition is very often varied and incoherent. In 1 U.S. Code § 8, which describes and define acts pertaining to “Public Law” (as opposed to Constitutional Law), we are told that “the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive” [8] It clear here that even legal dictionary definitions are incoherent. Pro, by using this, proposes that we take an assumed definition and replace that with an incoherent one. Moreover, if we were to use the dictionary definition, we should consult 18-19th century dictionaries. SCOTUS’s interpretative works attempts to find the Constitution as the Founding Fathers understood it. In deciding Heller v. Washington D.C., the Supreme Court used Webster’s 1828, a dictionary which was contemporaneous with the Constitution. In Webster’s 1828, a person is defined as being conscious and rational: something a fetus is not, and cannot be. Pro states that the SCOTUS can occassionally be wrong, and uses Scott v. Sanford to support his opinion. Although Pro misinterprets Scott v. Sanford, I must note that the method used by Scott v. Sanford uses the exact same method that Pro uses to interpret his Constitution. In the case, dissenting judge Benjamin Curtis notes, “when fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned and theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control, we no longer have a Constitution.” [9] Scott v. Sanford allowed for misintepretation because of misintepretations of the powers of Congress, and ignoring how the African-American community has always been part of the US community. [10] The abortion related SCOTUS cases cannot be called misinterpretations, for they are based on many non-abortion related cases (cited throughout debate) and no addition to the Constitution was made. Pro, however, assumes that "Person" in the Constitution could have two meanings, which is abusrd. Pro also adds bits of his own opinion, which contradict his Constitution, into his interpretation of the clauses.On a side note, the UVVA had abortion-related clauses as it protected wanted and to be born children, not unwanted children. This leads us to the last main objection: shouldn’t everyone have rights, including fetuses, under this argument? Shouldn’t this mean that all termination of fetuses would be immoral and should be sanctioned by the government? Since all instances of abortion are immoral and rights violating, shouldn’t abortions that are done “in order to save the life of the mother from death or serious physical injury” be illegal? This necessarily conflicts with Pro’s policy as pro describes in R1. b.) NAP Pro’s central claims in this argument is that (a.) the government should use an essentialist criterion to policy make, that (b.) this criterion should be the NAP, and that (c.) the NAP states that abortion should be banned. I am going to analyse only the first and second claim, since they are pretty much all based on each other. What I argued for the duration of the debate is that the government should not base itself on an abstract essentialist principle, for it assumes that the reaction to all laws are similar. To this, Pro repeatedly denies it, necessarily saying that if a criteria were required, then it is the NAP. However, this fails anyhow to “refute” my case anyhow, for Pro still assumes that we need an overlying criterion. What I have also argued for the duration of this debate is that the usage of abstract axioms leads to “gaps” taken from reality. To this, Pro challenges me to “posit a scenario where it is permissible for one to initiate aggression against another.” This is apart from the point-even if the NAP is true, should we use it to policy-make is another problem? Lastly, Pro claims that under my policy-making philosophy, law making would be random and unprincipled. However, under my policy-making philosophy, policy making would be based on reality (how people react to laws) rather than theory (how essentialists see people react to laws). Policy making should be “demand” satisfying, rather than “morally” satisfying. CONCLUSIONPro has failed to fulfill his BoP (show that his policy is justified, deters acts and provide for a better society) which he has accepted. Some of Pro's arguments are incoherent with his policy. All Pro's arguments stand refuted, and the resolution is NEGATED! CITATIONS [1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly...;[4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bit.ly...[8] http://bit.ly...[9] http://1.usa.gov...[10] http://bit.ly...