Abortion should be illegal.

1. Making abortions illegal doesn't mean they will stop My opponent, by arguing that back-alley abortions are not that bad, compromises his own moral mission. If abortions are bad or morally wrong, the goal should be to decrease them. By admitting that the law would result in dangerous illegal abortions, my opponent admits that his policy action, banning abortions, does not solve his moral objections, that abortion is murder. The Guttmacher Institute website that my opponent cites to say that back-alley abortions only kill women 0.3% of the time actually says that modern legal abortions, using hospitals/clinics, sanitized equipment, and overseen by a licensed physician, only result in hospitalization 0.3% of the time. This is a drastic improvement over pre-Roe v. Wade statistics. In fact, comparing countries where abortion is illegal and legal, the rates of abortion are the same, but the death rates are not. The New York Times reports that "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women's deaths during pregnancy and childbirth." [1] Illegal abortions are not safe; legal ones are. My opponent cites the example of drugs being illegal, but there is empirical evidence to suggest that illegality of drugs does decrease their usage. The study just cited, however, proves that illegality has no effect on abortion rates. So if the policy yields no practical results but simply makes the abortions performed more dangerous, how does that accomplish anything? 2. Alternatives My opponent claims my case proves that sex education fails. My case proves that abstinence-only sex education, of the kind Sarah Palin's daughter received, does not work. Sex education that emphasizes condom usage and safe sex does decrease teen pregnancy. According to UC San Francisco Medical School, "In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies on abstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV education programs is far more conclusive and encouraging. . . . A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity. . . . Several specific studies have demonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayed initiation of sexual activity, increased condom use, and decreased number of sexual partners." [2] We need more sex education in this country that teaches alternatives to abstinence. More contraceptive use would decrease the number of abortions performed. 3. Motives Giving up a child is not as easy as you make it sound. When she carries a baby to term, a mother's body releases a number of hormones designed to bond her to the new baby. Giving up the child can be far more psychologically scarring than having an abortion in the early months of pregnancy. In addition, many low-income women cannot afford the leave they would need to take from work during the third trimester and during the birthing process. My opponent says if the women are "responsible enough to have sex" they should be responsible enough to carry the child to term. The Guttmacher Institute page he cites points out that the majority of women seeking abortion used birth control, but the method they were using failed. The potential person argument: my opponent argues that fetuses are potential people. True. But so is every one of the 500 million sperm emitted per ejaculation and every one of the 400 mature eggs that women produce during their lifetime. Under his standard of potential person, how is menstruation not murder? If the woman had had more sex, that potential person could have realized life. The logical result of the potential person argument is a terrible amount of overpopulation in the world, resulting in shorter and worse lives for everyone as resources run out. Also, if life is so important to people who are pro-life, why do they concern themselves so much with abortion but so little with all the lives that are cut short by violence in Sudan, for example. International aid in the U.S. remains at an all time low and much lower than other countries, as a share of GDP. In contrast, OpenSecrets reports that the pro-life lobby spent $1.4 million on lobbying in 2008. That money could have saved a lot of lives in the Third World. We don't mind when real children's lives worldwide are cut short by easily solved starvation, but we care about the death of what can only be described during the early stages of develop as a mass of undifferentiated cells. The above exposes the flaw in the potential person argument and how it is applied. Saving actual people first and ensuring we have enough worldwide resources for everyone who is already here should supersede efforts to birth more potential people. 4. Exceptional cases I think my opponent misunderstands my point here. Ectopic pregnancies can be solved by an abortion. If the fetus is not aborted, it will rupture the fallopian tube, killing the mother and itself. What function does banning abortion in this case serve? The fetus will die either way, but abortion means the mother can live. My opponent's case 1. Miscarriage Women's bodies miscarry for many reasons, one of which is developmental problems with the fetus. Another is a lack of resources. If there is not enough food for both the women and the fetus to survive, the body makes a calculation and decides to abort the fetus naturally. How is this different from the decision to abort so a woman can continue working and providing for the children she already has? This is particularly important when there are multiple fetuses. When a woman has three viable fetuses, her body is much more likely to abort one naturally so that the remaining fetuses have more resources and a greater survival chance. Does my opponent object to fertility treatments? These give potential people a chance to live in a loving home. But doctors usually implant at least 3 fetuses at a time because the chance the pregnancy will "take" and the fetus will attach to the uterine wall is low (near 30%). Is it okay to knowingly create the death of a few fetuses in order to give one of them a good life? 2. I think I've answered the potential person argument – we can't possibly let all potential people be born. It would strain women's bodies physically to birth all their eggs and it would lead to overpopulation. Second, your argument assumes there are no tradeoffs to allowing the potential person to be born, but the mother has to go through 9 months of difficult pregnancy, a difficult labor, must pay for the birth herself in most cases, must take time off work (which will result in her losing her job in some cases, especially if the job is part-time or off-the-books, like many housekeeping jobs), and must undergo the psychological pain of giving up a child. All those reasons is why it should be here choice. In addition, in foster care, the child has a three in four chance of being raped. Foster care is not a nice place to live. Article Base cites a number of studies proving that suicide rates among foster care youth are alarmingly high. "Recent years, researchers admit high rates of suicides among youth within the foster care system." [3] Suicide can be taken as a statement that one wishes they were never born. In addition, if the fetus were aborted, under Catholic doctrine, it would now go to heaven (the Pope changed his mind and declared that they no longer go to Purgatory). However, if the child commits suicide, he or she goes to hell. Which is more acceptable to you?