Abortion

I'm sorry, The random capitalization brought forth by Debate. Org made it incredibly dificult to read what my opponent wrote previously, So please forgive me for any mistakes made in reading his numbers. Before we get into the breadth of the argument, It's fair to point out that one of the central presumptions of my opponent is that upon abortion's criminilazation, The net number of pregancies terminated will be lowered. Otherwise, He isn't preserving pregancies to any means, But simply moving abortion underground, As shown by aforementioned evidence by the Independent which hasn't been challenged by my opponent. This is significant because no matter what he may marshall to the contary, Abortions will continue at the same rate, Meaning that there will not be an excess of children up for adoption nor will neural diversity be preserved. His only real response to this has been that "because something will continue anyway does not mean that we should allow its legalisation. " However, This wasn't an argument for its legalisation, But rather against its criminalization. Nothing in regard to the rate of abortion will change, Only moved to the criminal underworld with less safeguards causing an increase in mortallity (which is really quite marvelous for those who call themselves prolife). While on this point, He tries a faulty reductio ad absurdum, Asking whether manslaughter should be made legal simply because it will still occur underground. However, He fails to realize that while certain laws do prevent certain actions from taking place (as in the case of rape, Torture, Murder, Theft, Perjury etc. ) while others do not (illicit drugs, Abortion, Etc. ). For example, As according to Dennis Henigan of the Daily Beast, "in one survey, incarcerated felons who had not carried weapons during the commission of their crimes were asked why they decided against being armed. Fifty-nine percent chose the response “Against the law. ” I'll now deal with rebuttals against my own case. He says that abortion would be tried at the discresion of the judge, And at most would get mandatory consueling. Several problems with this. First, Under the current legislative and executive branches, Abortion would almost certainly be legislated to be murder in order to appeal to the prolife and evangelical of their base. To do otherwise would be political suicide for the midterm elections. Second, Even if it didn't have the same punishment as murder, The same effect would take place. May I ask how the judcial system will take 41 million more cases every year? Though estimates vary, Most place the number of liscened consuelers at less than 1 million, As compared to the 41 million American women who have had an abortion. Third, No matter the consquences, It would still be devestating for women's rights, Because 1/4 of all women would be punished for crimes, Being permantley put onto their criminal record. If he wants any sort of plausible argument, He must show how it is even possible to make abortion illegal with server adverse consquences. Though rape and incest make only a minority of abortions, This isn't to diminish their importance. The US President makes up 99. 99% of the total population of the US yet there are plenty laws regarding him. Regardless, He makes no argument against why they shouldn't be able to get an abortion. Why couldn't we simply make exceptions for those two?