Resolved: Abortion ought to be legal.

I will be outlining my arguments in this speech, although it is difficult to do so because I have no real clue where Con stands on the spectrum of pro-life. First off, that is not the definition of abortion, here is the actual definition: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. These arguments will be in response to popular pro-life arguments. Con should not point out that he never said these things because he hasn't said anything and has structured the debate in his favor. Most of the arguments should be outside of "when does life begin" arguments because those are vastly unproveable and completely subjective. 1. "A fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to live, so abortion is murder." This is a good starting point because there is no actual definition for when life begins. It's almost entirely subjective. Because of this, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you or the audience supporting you that a fetus isn't a life. But here are the arguments aside from that. A fetus cannot survive on it's own and is fully dependent on it's mother's body; but, the right to life does not include the right to use someone else's body, this is why people can refuse to donate organs. The right to life does not bring about the right to live by threatening the life or well being of another human being, this is specifically a "what if the mother is in danger argument" but can be applied outside of it. Financial, physical, and mental health are all detrimentally impacted by pregnancy and child birth, the fetus does not have the right to those things. The right to life is also, essentially, the right to not have somebody else's will imposed onto your own body without consent, this applies to abortion as well. 2. "You should be responsible for your actions of having sex" This is the natural counter argument to my first point. But the problem with this argument is it assumes that the most responsible choice is pregnancy and giving birth. However, this is just not true if the mother does not want or can not take care of a child. I would argue that abortion prevents much more suffering and misery than forced pregnancy and child birth. Not everyone has access to contraception nor does everyone have the proper sex education to know how to use it and where to get it. But for arguments sake let's suppose that everyone does have these things. Even then, contraception is not 100% effective even when used perfectly. If you still support that it is the woman's responsibility to have a child just as a consequence of having sex, not a consequence of being ill prepared. This is not a value of life argument, this argument is strictly to control people's behavior, mostly women of course. 3. "Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion." This assumes that the only reason to have an abortion is to avoid raising a child, but that's just not the case. Depending on circumstances, giving birth in a hospital costs $3,000 - $37,000 dollars and a C section costs $8,000 - $71,000 dollars. [1] While the act itself is dangerous as well, it is the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34, the vast majority of pregnant women. [2] These are on top of the expenses of pre-natal care as well. Not just the financial expenses, which has too wide of a range to portray, but also the emotional. People are often shunned/shammed for their pregnancies when they have it at a "bad time." This is extremely prevalent in pregnant teens. Adoption doesn't address any of these. 4. "When abortion is legal, women just use it as birth control." There isn't any evidence of this. Logic also goes to show that this would rarely happen, considering contraceptives are far cheaper, easier, less painful, less time-consuming, less emotionally detrimental, and more readily available than abortions. It seems odd to suggest that women who've decided to use birth control would utilize abortion as the preferred method. And yes, most women do decide whether to use birth control before having consensual sex. In fact, it is empirically proven that women will seek abortions whether or not they are legal and when other contraceptives are more widely available, abortion rates go down.[3] 5. "Abortions are dangerous" This is a common argument to combat pro-choice arguments that center around having a higher net life total. But it just doesn't stand up to criticism. Abortions are one of the safest procedures in medicine, with a fatality rate of less than .01 percent! The risk of dying while giving birth, however, is thirteen times higher.[4] Using the evidence from the last point [3], we can cross apply it with this argument. Abortions performed by inexperienced and untrained people are extremely unsafe, with 68,000 women dying every year from "back alley" abortions, which are most common when abortion is illegal. Empirical evidence also proves this, in Romania a policy was in place from 1966-1989 that banned abortions. During this time 9,000 women died from unsafe abortions, about TWO WOMEN every day.[5] It doesn't end at mothers being affected either, that same ban caused the nationwide orphan crisis with about 150,000 unwanted newborns were placed in horrific state-run orphanages.[6] An orphan crisis would undoubtedly happen in the US as well. 6. "What if ____ had been aborted?" This is probably one of the most common arguments. This is extremely flawed because I can just point to horrific people who could have been aborted and thus, saving millions of lives. 7. "Many women regret their abortions" Another common argument that is also fundamentally flawed. Should the government ban something people might regret later on? Think of everything you regret. A cruddy relationship, missed job opportunity, etc. Should those have laws against them as well? No, they should not. 8. "Taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to pay for something they disagree with." Okay, then most Americans wouldn't pay for the military, since almost everyone has a gripe with how that is handled or anything else. So should we disband the military? Absolutely not. Here are some offensive, "on the attack," arguments now. 1. Abortion is a fundamental right in the U.S. This is a legal argument. In 1973, Roe v. Wade declared that a woman is able to make her own medical decisions regarding her own body without the government intervening. This applies to abortion for the fact that the beginning of life cannot be proven outside of birth. You may call an appeal to tradition fallacy but that wouldn't apply, since the somatic rights of a human can and should be supported in every case possible where it doesn't trample the rights of another, and for the fact that this argument is talking about whether Roe v. Wade should extend to abortion, which it should since the case stated that "the word "person," as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn." In conclusion, there is no just reason abortion should be illegal. Debating over when life begins is useless as it is purely subjective and completely opinion based. Science cannot prove it because you may depict life beginning at conception but I may depict life beginning at sentience. No credible authority can prove, without a doubt, which should be preferred as far as science goes. But what can be proven is which should be preferred as far as logistics and real world impacts go. And those sources side with me, Pro. Sources: [1] http://www.ucsf.edu... [2] https://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.womenscenter.com... [4] http://www.who.int... [5] https://www.theguardian.com... [6] http://articles.latimes.com...