Should abortion be allowed

My opponent in this round has made a number of generalizations in order to facilitate false constructs. I will address these in a moment, but first I will support my claim about the balance of utility between a mother and her child. My opponent's only argument against this is that the quality of life for the child will be worse. My opponent has no sources supporting this, so that alone is enough to demolish it. The concept that the child will undoubtedly "grow up to be a miserable drug addict" has no weight behind it, and it is a generalization about the lives of people who were conceived by accident. Although good statistics are difficult to find, it is safe to say that as nearly 40 percent of births are unintended (3), living conditions for those born by accident are not by necessity lower than those of their parents. While rape and the possibility of death are certainly things we would rather avoid, it is selfish to value the possibility of worsening part of one's life over the certainty of completely losing all of it. Here's the math to prove it. C x Q x D = V Where C is the chance, Q is the quality decrease, and D is the duration. If we assume unplanned pregnancy to have a 90% of reducing the quality of life for the mother by 90%, then plug in the fifty-five remaining years of their life (assuming an age of 20), this is the result. 0.9 x 0.9 x 55 = 44.55 It should be noted that although good statistics are hard to find, the numbers I have used here are very generous to the Pro side. Most women are older than 20 when they are pregnant, and a 90% decrease in the quality of life is simply absurd. However, even using this ridiculously inflated value, it still fails to match the loss suffered by the aborted fetus. 1.0 x 1.0 x 75 = 75 This is the math of utilitarianism, and this is why the life of the fetus has a higher value than that of the mother almost every time. My opponent has stated that "Any fertile man and woman have the potential to create a child". I would like my opponent to support the contention that a fertile man in Canada and a fertile woman in New Zealand can create a child. This may seem absurd, but it's important to remember that when you remove things from isolation you fundamentally change their properties. So if my opponent says that they should simply travel to each other, then that would not work because either the man would not be in Canada or the woman not in New Zealand. Either way, you're changing the problem definition. This is the same principle on which I discuss the isolate of the sperm cell from the egg cell. By themselves, there is no potential for a child. Although it may seem that a mother should have the right to choose for those who cannot, this is what is called virtual representation and is recognized as illegitimate in most systems. Likewise, I do not think that anyone should have the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner for another person by themselves. My opponent does not seem to understand that even when carrying capacity is reached the majority of the population is unaffected. If we assume species X has a carrying capacity of 5 million, then what happens when that number is exceeded? 5 million are supported, the rest are not or are minimally. The 5 million will be supported either way, regardless of whether some are not being supported. In fact, the only difference between allowing nature to take its course and artificial population control is that population control requires money and resources that could be spent feeding the poor. Lastly, I would like to say that the fetus still is alive and can be killed. It may not be conscious yet, but plants are not conscious but are clearly recognized as alive. Now, I do not argue that killing plants is immoral because a plant cannot have a future like ours while a fetus can. These points are addressed by Marquis in his paper I linked. (3) http://abcnews.go.com...