Abortion should be illegal

Pro's case consists of three claims: (a) the fetus is a human life, possessing the right to life, which directly ties into my point on autonomy, (b) legalizing abortion would be inconsistent with federal law, and (c) abortion should be legal even if back-alley abortions are a threat. Each of those three claims fails simply because all of those claims are inconsistent with the real purpose of government: to help the people as a whole. Right to lifeThere are four points of clash here. I'm going to say that (1) sentience is the precondition for the right to life, (2) the fetus isn't sentient, (3) the standard of 24 weeks isn't "arbitary," and (4) the right to bodily autonomy exists and is directly applicable to abortion. Sentiocentrism. Pro says that the fetus is biologically a human, and therefore possesses the right to life. That's a non-sequitur. I'm in agreement with Pro that the fetus is biologically a human, but disagree with the "axiom" that any biological human possesses the right to life. This brings us to the philosophical debate: in society, which individuals should get legal rights? My answer is simple: those who can feel or perceive subjectively (i.e. sentient beings). Those are the only beings that should get rights because the role of the government is to maximize the desires of the people. Pro seems to disagree with this framework, but doesn't offer a contrasting objective of government. The utilitarian standard is the best one because the purpose of government is to balance our competing interests. The only reason the government has any political legitimacy is because, when the government was formed in the first place, it was to resolve disputes based on rights. Since Pro clearly agrees with the concept of "rights," all I need to say is that the government's job is to weigh the importance of rights against each other – and the best way for the government to do that is to weigh the importance of "interests," which are the grounding for rights, against each other, and therefore make utilitarian calculations. Since the fetus lacks interests, it shouldn't have rights (in this case, the right to life).Fetus's Sentience. Pro seems to disagree with the idea that the fetus isn't sentient. In response to my source that the fetus doesn't feel pain, they say that pain isn't the only dimension of sentience. I agree, but I'm going to argue that the fetus doesn't fulfill any dimension of sentience. People with CIP are still sentient. [11] By contrast, the fetus can't feel or perceive subjectively until 24 weeks – it's completely non-sentient. [12] Consciousness only arises between the 25th and 28th week of pregnancy. Which means the fetus isn't sentient, and so abortion is justified under the standard I've established. Arbitariness. As I established before, fetuses become sentient only after the 24th week of pregnancy. The standard isn't arbitrary because it is well-established in scientific fact, as I've mentioned earlier. So, there's no justification from Pro that this standard is "arbitary," outside of their asserting it without any justification.Autonomy. First, Pro agrees with the harm principle, but holds that abortion constitutes "harm" to the fetus – justifying this by the definition of harm. But I'm just using the word "harm" for convenience – what is obviously implied is the idea of sentience. I think that, since the fetus isn't sentient, moral consideration doesn't apply to the fetus. The same way a plant can be "harmed," a fetus can be harmed, but I don't support banning abortion just as I don't support banning the "harming" of plants. Second, later, Pro says the right to autonomy doesn't exist – a blatant contradiction with their initial agreement with the harm principle. Pro gives the example of public nudity being banned in the status quo. My response is that I don't necessarily support the status quo: that's an is/ought fallacy. My position is that a right to autonomy should exist, not that it does exist. Since I've already proven that a fetus doesn't have moral consideration, a woman should have the right to abort as a part of the right to liberty. InconsistencyThe idea that legalizing abortion is inconsistent with federal law is a bad argument because it is overly American-centric and ignores the existence of other countries, and is also patently false. First, the UVVA is an American law. Nothing in the resolution suggests that this debate is U.S.-centric. I'm arguing that, as a matter of general principle, abortion should be legal. This isn't a debate about the United States alone. Since I needn't defend the status quo in the United States, this argument fails. As an extension of this, I don't need to defend the status quo at all, or the existence of such a law – that's not within my burden of persuasion. Second, legalizing abortion isn't inconsistent with this law either. The reason is simple: the fetus is a part of the woman's body, even if a distinct human life, which means the woman has control over the fetus. If the woman doesn't consent to damage occurring to the fetus, it obviously should be illegal. This is similar to an exercise in private property rights. Only a woman has the right to abort her own fetus or consent to it being done – if it's forcibly done, then further punishment is fine. Back-alley abortionsPro's position on this is ridiculous. They say that legality making an action safer holds good with most crimes, such as rape. That's nonsense. I'm going to look at two things here. First, I'm going to explain why this actually doesn't hold good with most crimes. Second, I'm going to explain why things that are "still wrong" shouldn't necessarily be illegal, and that overall better outcomes are more important (i.e. consequences are more important than action; the ends justify the means). First, legality doesn't make an action safer in all circumstances. The reason rape is illegal is not that it's "inherently wrong" – rather, because it causes harm to an individual, and banning rape reduces the risk. How does it reduce the risk? It deters rapes from happening. Legal rape doesn't make it "safer" – that's a nonsensical idea. By contrast, abortion bans only achieve marginal deterrence and produce overall worse outcomes because abortion bans make abortion more unsafe (whereas rape bans do nothing of the sort). Pro concedes that back-alley abortions are very unsafe and encouraged under abortion, which means my impact still stands. Second, the broad problem with Pro's rebuttal here is that they're assuming that actions are inherently right or wrong, and that's what decides their legality or illegality. That's false. The reason anything is made illegal is that the illegality of said thing creates better outcomes. I've already justified this framework under the "sentiocentrism" point: the government's job is to weigh interests against each other, and interests (i.e. mental states) are essentially outcomes of policy. That's not a "vague" standard as Pro claims because "interests" are pretty clear: they're just desires of the people. The desires and preferences of people are weighed against each other and are considered rights, under the utilitarian framework based on which the government should operate. ConclusionMy burden in this debate is simple: to prove that, in a broad and general context, abortion should be legal. I've proven that by showing that there's a right to autonomy and to overall better outcomes, and abortion bans violate both these rights. For these reasons alone, I've won this debate.Pro drops my justifications that I already presented in favor of the right to autonomy and simply dismisses it as "non-existent," which is a blatant is/ought fallacy; Pro similarly takes a ridiculous stance on back-alley abortions. For these reasons alone, vote Con, because Pro's positions are downright ridiculous.[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...