Abortion should be illegal

ContentionsSafetyCon focuses on the South African study, attempting to explain away the quadrupled maternal mortality by saying that 43.7% of maternal deaths were caused by HIV. However, this hasn't been demonstrated to account for a quadrupling of maternal deaths, which is a huge increase.Besides, even if Con is right and the liberal abortion policy did save lives, the argument still only works if Con succeeds in proving that abortion isn't a right-violating act. If it is a rights-violating act, then the perpetrators' safety should not be considered, since they forfeit their own rights by violating the rights of another.Furthermore, if someone chooses willingly to undergo a dangerous procedure, then they take tacit responsibility for their own welfare - it is no longer the government's prerogative to protect them.For example, if someone willingly chooses to go jump off a bridge, they are taking responsibility for their own welfare, it is outside the government's responsibility to place safety nets under all bridges.Therefore, if someone willingly chooses to have an unsafe abortion, they are taking responsibility for their own welfare. Hence, on a policy level, it doesn't make sense to legalise abortion to 'protect' women since these women are willingly choosing to endanger themselves!Frequency of AbortionCon argues against the New study by claiming that women from pro-life states travel to pro-choice states in order to have an abortion, hence refuting the study's conclusion.However, new evidence from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that this factor doesn't eliminate the connection between pro-life laws and a reduction in abortion rates. For an average pro-life state, the average cost to travel to a pro-choice state to get an abortion is $643 (1). Since many people seek abortions because of financial problems (2), it stands to reason that many women wanting abortions will be dissuaded by the cost of travelling outside their state.The same paper, from the NBER, concludes that if Roe was overturned and abortion became illegal in most states, then abortion rates would fall about 14.9% nationally (3). Therein lies substantial proof that abortion prohibition would reduce abortion rates - hence refuting Con's argument.Socio-Economic Effects of AbortionCon states:'The goal here is to rid undesire children to prevent them from a problematic upbringing, not to get rid of unwanted ones'But is there any difference between undesired children and unwanted ones? If there isn't, then this is a blatant logical contradiction. He is saying 'the goal here is to rid undesired children... not to get rid of undesired children'.Which one is it? Con isn't being coherent here.If the goal is to get rid of undesired children to prevent them from a problematic upbringing, then this would justify infanticide, since it would achieve the same end (ridding undesired children to prevent them from a problematic upbringing). Unless Con is Pro-infanticide, he cannot hold this position.If the goal isn't to get rid of undesired children, then abortion cannot be justified on these grounds. If there is no 'goal' to get rid of undesired children, then abortion wouldn't be achieving any desirable goal.Whichever horn of the dilemma Con decides to take on, his argument is on shaky ground.Next, Con writes:'And even if so, (b.) provides us with a good reason why we should reject such comparisons as negating the argument. Isn't eating meat much like a psychopathic genocide i.e. "we kill because we like to eat them"? Such a practice is inhumane, yet a law criminalizing the meat industry would be unwanted. Isn't the government like God on Earth, punishing crimes that people sometimes do not deserve punishment?'This is a faulty comparison because eating animal meat is completely different to genocide. The intent of the former is to gain sustenance and eat a healthy diet, whereas the intent of the latter is to maliciously commit mass-murder.The comparison between abortion and infanticide isn't faulty, on the other hand, because the intent is the same. That is, to prevent an unwanted child from a problematic upbringing.Finally, the whole premise that we should kill people to prevent them from suffering is absurd. A rich person may deem a poor person's life as being full of suffering, yet it does not follow that the rich person is justified in killing the poor person, even if the intent is to alleviate suffering. Surely then, it is a dangerous precedent to kill foetuses on the grounds that we would prevent their suffering, because if it is justified in the case of foetal-killing, why should it not be justified in the case of infant-killing or adult-killing?DefencesRightsCon's first contention is that my case 'does not contain any legal decisions which support [foetal personhood]'.But this is a blatant oversight. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act clearly supports foetal personhood because it states that an unborn human can be a victim of crime. To say this is a clear indication that a foetus is a person.Secondly, Con asks for a constitutional definition of person. Well, since the constitution rarely bothers to define its terms, the next best thing is to consult a legal dictionary. The most prominent one, from www.law.com, defines person as:'human being' (4)Since a foetus is a human being (proved in my round 2), it is therefore a person.Next, Con asks:'if all babies had the right to life, then does threatening the lives of their parents should not be considered for abortion.'But this is a straw-man, since I established earlier in this debate that I consider abortion acceptable in cases where it is necessary in order to protect the lives of the parents.My opponent continues to try to argue that personhood starts at birth, citing US vs Wong Kim Ark as supposed proof. However, it is clear from the context of the Supreme Court case that the case is outside the remit of deciding whether a foetus is person or not. Con takes this case completely out of context in order to twist it to deny foetal personhood.This is supported by the fact that birth is completely arbitrary at deciding personhood/citizenship. Birth is simply the movement of a human being through the birth canal, it doesn't change the actual human being, so it doesn't make sense to say that a pre-natal human being isn't a citizen whereas a post-natal human being is one - there is no essential, morally-relevant difference between the two.Con's next argument is based on a Supreme Court declaration that states that the fourteenth amendment does not include the unborn because abortion practices were 'far freer' back then. However, I would content that the Supreme Court is not an absolute authority on the constitution, it is possible for the SCOTUS to interpret it incorrectly (as I argue here). For example, in Dred Scott vs Sanford, the SCOTUS decreed that blacks weren't entitled to the same level of citizenship as whites (5). Therefore, just because SCOTUS interprets the constitution a certain way, it does not follow that they are always right in their interpretation. Because of this, the SCOTUS's assertion that the fourteenth amendment only applies post-natally does not mean that it is true that the fourteenth amendment only applies post-natally.Finally, whilst the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) does have a clause that exempts abortion, this was only done in order to allow the act to get through. It merely placated the pro-choice movement from complaining even more. It does not change the fact that pronouncing the unborn as victims is a clear indication that they have legal status as persons. But this conclusion is all I needed to support my first argument, the UVVA doesn't need to explicitly condemn abortion, all it needed to do was establish foetal personhood.NAPAgain, Con talks a lot of talk here, without actually addressing the key points of the argument. It is an unavoidable fact that a criterion is necessary to establish a distinction between prohibited acts and non-prohibited acts. If we don't have a criterion, then all law-making would be completely arbitrary.So, given that we need a criterion, we must find the best criterion. Well, in terms of government, it should find the best criterion in order to ensure the best version of society. I contend that the NAP is the best criterion because it maximises utility and accords with protection of rights and non-interferrence with harmless activities.Unless Con can either:1. Refute the need for a criterionor2. Refute the premise that the NAP is the most suitable criterion (what the government should use).My argument stands.More to the point, Con needs to remember what the NAP actually states. It states that it is not permissible for one to initiate aggression against another.My opponent would struggle to refute the truth of the NAP, since it would require him to posit a scenario where it is permissible for one to initiate aggression against another. Yet there is no such scenario (self-defence doesn't count, since it isn't an initiation of aggression, only a response to it).ConclusionCon makes two arguments and I make two. Con's first argument, from the danger of illegal abortions, requires that he refute my 'rights' argument, otherwise it begs the question. Since Con has failed to refute my 'rights' argument, his first argument fails.Con's second argument falls quickly into both absurdities (such as justifying infanticide) and dubious assumptions (that killing is justified if we deem someone's life not worth living).To conclude, I have refuted all of Con's arguments and he has failed to refute any of mine. Hence the resolution is affirmed._____(1) http://www.nber.org...(2) http://womensissues.about.com...(3) http://www.nber.org...(4) http://dictionary.law.com...(5) http://mic.com...