Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

I will first refute my opponents arguments and perhaps include a few of my own at the end if the limit permits. I agree that we are debating about voluntary abortion, involuntary abortion is of course unjust and can be discarded for the benefit of both sides. Observation: Due to the fact that the resolution offers a complete extension of abortion, as long as I can prove one type of voluntary abortion immoral or some criteria that determines that it should not be legal, I have proved the resolution false and win. R1: Overpopulation ArgumentAt what point is murdering humans not a bad thing? I'll go over this in my case however it is a bad thing that we are murdering humans. Annually, 46 million babies die from abortion worldwide. That’s approximately one baby being aborted every two seconds. [1] Abortion only provides a hinder for population growth. Also, what population growth are you referring to? America is not increasing very rapidly in terms of population by birth for it is mostly immigration. Besides I could say that genocide can control populations therefore it is just, no? "Humane" or not, this is still murder. We can kill everyone with anesthesia, is that not humane? There is no real apparent argument for this and is rather whimsical. R2: Rape ArgumentFirst off, this does not even close to nearly prove the resolution true. John Willke, MD explains:Let’s look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year. Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy. A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining. One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000). Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let’s cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500). Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375). Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400). Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600). Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920). In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740). [2] Now that we have established the minuscule quantity of the argument, let's look towards the moral aspect. Now I agree that the woman should not have the obligation to necessarily care for the baby however that does not justify abortion. Some options include adoption, foster homes, etc. I know my opponent will bring up the cost argument however due to the irregular repetition there will be no apparent problem. It is still prima facie morally wrong to kill a human, I'll refer to that later. R3: Self-Ownership/House Argument To truly deconstruct this argument we have to look at what the Pro is advocating. Pro is basically saying the woman has her own life and the fetus has no right to occupy it. However this is completely incorrect because using the same exact logic that my opponent uses, the fetus has a right to live. The fact is when the woman decides to have a baby due to sexual intercourse there are intrinsic values that come as a maternal figure. Regardless if she wants to due to the epistemic normative that conducts morality she is responsible for the being. She has no right to murder the innocent being. Most of the cases are not rape/unintentional pregnancy so morality must conduct her to bear the baby. It's a responsibility. In terms of the house metaphor this is completely irrelevant. In the house argument the person is not invited. At the point at which the maternal figure has decided to have a baby or engage in sexual intercourse (which comes with intrinsic responsibilities), she has no right to kill it. If you invited someone over for a day long, do you have the right to kill him/her at your own arbitrary whim? No, of course not. This argument is completely invalid and should be discarded for sake of argument. C1: Abortion is murder and is prima facie morally wrong. I'll be using a commonly used acronym for this debate:Size: It is true that embryos/fetuses are smaller than newborns, children, and adults, but how is that relevant? Are larger people more human than smaller people? Are men more human than women, since men are generally larger? Are people with achondroplasia (dwarfism) less human, and less valuable, than average-sized people, because they are smaller? No. Size does not equal value. Level of Dependency: Yes, embryos/fetuses are less developed than you and I. But, how is this relevant? A 6 year old child is less developed than a 12 year old. Should the older child have more rights, simply because he/she is more developed? Some people claim that self-awareness is what makes someone human. But if that is true, then newborns are not valuable human beings. Six-week old infants have a limited capacity for human mental function, but this is the same with people who are sleeping, comatose, and elderly people with Alzheimer's disease. Does this make them less valuable human beings? No. Environment: Your location does not define who or how valuable your life is. Does crossing a street or moving to a different state change your value? No. Every human being's original environment is in the womb. How does travelling 8 inches down the birth canal change a non-human into a human? If preborn humans were, for some reason, not human, changing their environment wouldn't magically transform them into valuable humans. A human is a human from conception, and location does not define value. Dependency: If being viable makes one a valuable human beings, then there are many people that shouldn't be considered "valuable. " Diabetics who rely on insulin, people who depend on kidney medication, people who need life support, conjoined twins who share body systems, and the elderly who are bed-ridden - by this logic, all of these people listed are "non-valuable" human beings. [3] Thus now that we have established that these are not the criteria in which we determine what is human or not, what is? Human nature at its simplest is the criteria. Thus it is immoral to kill the baby or innocent human being. C2: Abortion has lead to millions of innocent deaths. Ever since the Roe vs. Wade debate we have seen abortion kill millions and millions of people because we allow the woman to “choose” to do something immoral. According to the CDC, since 1973, the year of the Supreme Court Decision Roe vs. Wade, 13 million (13,000,000) African American lives have been lost to abortion. The CDC reports that of the approximately 4000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1452 of them are performed on African American women and their pre-born children. This means that although African Americans represent only 12% of the population of the United States, they account for 35% of the abortions performed in this country. [4] Unfortunately I have to end it here because of lack of space. Vote CON and see comments for sources. I will elaborate on more arguments next round.