Abortion should be illegal

I thank Con for his well-thought out opening arguments, I will now refute them.Argument 1 - Problems with illegal abortionsThis is one of the most common arguments for the legalisation of abortion - that doing so would reduce maternal deaths from abortion. Before I start, I would like to express deep scepticism of Con's use of the Guttmacher Institute as a source - the Guttmacher Institute is heavily pro-abortion and therefore has little credibility as an unbiased source.Firstly, Con writes that in countries that have restrictive abortion laws, there is a relatively high abortion-mortality rate. I accept this, but I dispute that this is a causal relationship. The relatively high abortion-mortality rate is most likely not because of restrictive abortion laws.The first bit of evidence for this contention is that the legality of abortion has little effect on its safety. The abortion mortality rate before Roe vs Wade was decreasing rapidly and the Supreme Court Decision did not change this trend at all (1). What this graph does show is that the main decrease in abortion mortality was down to the introduction of penicillin as well as other medical advancements.This observation explains the correlation noted between pro-life countries and abortion death rates; because it is generally poor and undeveloped countries such as African, Middle Eastern and South American countries that restrict abortion (2), the explanation for the high abortion mortality rate is simply that these countries lack the necessary medical advancements to ensure safe abortions. In conclusion, the correlation between high-abortion death rates and pro-life countries is not due to the legality of abortion in that country, but rather due of the state of medical development. Hence in this case, the correlation does not equal causation.Next, Con brings up the case of South Africa. The problem with this case study is that, whilst abortion legalisation may have reducedabortion-related deaths, the move to legalise abortion and provide abortion services was most likely done at the expense of satisfactory healthcare for non-aborting mothers. The evidence for this conjecture is that in the past 20 years (which was the era in which abortion became legal) maternal death-rates have quadrupled (3).So what do we take from this? If we take the South African model in order to prove that legalising abortion decreases deaths from abortions, we also have to accept that maternal mortality will increase for those who choose not to abort. Considering that most women choose not to have an abortion (for a given pregnancy)(4), we can reason that the non-aborting mothers' health should be prioritised (on a policy level) because they are the larger group. Since banning abortion correlates to a decrease in maternal mortality, it follows that abortion should be banned. The perceived benefit of helping aborting-mothers is outweighed by the increased risk for non-aborting mothers, since the latter is a much larger group.On the whole, Con's central claim is that prohibiting abortion will cause more maternal deaths. Yet the evidence suggests that legalisation of abortion has no positive affect on maternal mortality. A Chilean study by Elard Koch found that:'During the 50-year study period, the MMR decreased from 293.7 to 18.2/100,000 live births, a decrease of 93.8%. Women's education level modulated the effects of TFR, birth order, delivery by skilled attendants, clean water, and sanitary sewer access. In the fully adjusted model, for every additional year of maternal education there was a corresponding decrease in the MMR of 29.3/100,000 live births. A rapid phase of decline between 1965 and 1981 (W22;13.29/100,000 live births each year) and a slow phase between 1981 and 2007 (W22;1.59/100,000 live births each year) were identified. After abortion was prohibited, the MMR decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (W22;69.2%). The slope of the MMR did not appear to be altered by the change in abortion law.' (emphasis mine)(5)In other words, the maternal mortality rate (MMR) in Chile was decreasing rapidly prior to the prohibition of abortion, most likely due to medical developments, and that the banning of abortion did not revert this trend, in fact it made no difference whatsoever. The conclusion of this study, then, is that legalisation of abortion does not improve maternal mortality.Why use the example of Chile? One may ask. Why is this data more valuable than that of other countries such as South Africa or Romania? Well, the reason that this study most pertains to this debate is because it observes the effect of banning abortion after a long period of abortion being legal. This is more relevant than data from countries legalising abortion for the first time, because this debate is whether abortion should be prohibited in the USA, which has already had a long period of liberal abortion laws.Therefore, abortion prohibition will most likely not cause more maternal deaths.Another problem with this argument is that it begs the question; it assumes the shaky premise that abortion isn't a rights-violating act. But if it is a rights-violating act, as I have proved in R2, then it is very dubious to assert that it should be legalised to protect the perpetrators of the act. For example, it is absurd to say that we should legalise theft in order to provide safe conditions for thieves.The next point made by Con is that restricting abortion does not reduce abortion rates. His only source is from Guttmacher Institute, which is very biased towards legal abortion.Given this, I will present multiple pieces of evidence that disprove this claim.1. Poland heavily restricted abortion in in 1993, and consequently saw a drop from around 130,000 abortions per year in the mid-1980s to around 160 per year in 1999-2004. (6)2. Restricting abortion would deter most women from having one (7). This is pretty evident, as it is patently obvious that if said activity is illegal, it will discourage at least some people from doing said activity.3. In the US, a study concluded that the number of abortions decreased by 22.22% from 1990 to 2005, and wrote that 'one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level.' (8)Therefore, the claim that prohibiting abortion won't reduce the abortion rate is also refuted.Argument 2 - Social effectsCon makes lots of claims here, including the claim that 'denied abortions' face multiple challenges in life. However, it is a non-sequitur to conclude that abortion should be legal. Con's logic forms the following argument:P1: People who aren't aborted (because of pro-life laws) go on to have some problems in later lifeP2: ???C: Abortion should be legal.For this argument to be logically valid, P2 would have to be something along the lines of:'If a person will have some problems in later life, it is better that they were killed early on in their lives'.Con would struggle to justify this premise. Moreover, it has absurd conclusions. Studies show that people growing up in orphanages are more likely to have problems in later life, but surely this does not justify walking into orphanages and delivering painless lethal injections to all the orphans?Furthermore, this argument for abortion also justifies infanticide. Since the aim is to prevent problem-stricken persons from growing up into society, it does not matter whether they are killed before birth or after birth. It contradicts Con's 'trimester policy' as well - there is no reason why the killing should be done in the first trimester or the third, if we accept Con's perceived reasons for allowing abortion.Secondly, Con cites a study that shows that people who are denied abortions are more likely to suffer PIPV. But allowing abortion doesn't solve the problem here; the problem is domestic violence, a problem that won't be solved by allowing abortion. The need is to punish abusive partners, not propagate violence onto innocent foetuses.Con's logic also justifies genocide; since he allows the killing of an entire class of human beings (unwanted children) in order to improve society. To use a reductio ad absurdum, black people are more likely to commit crime, but it does not follow that we should wipe out the black race in order to improve society by reducing crime.Therefore, Con's argument here is fallacious, leads to absurd conclusions, and doesn't limit the killing to abortion - it also allows infanticide.Argument 3 - Pro-life laws and frequency of abortionThis argument is mainly an expansion of Con's point in argument 1 that 'restricting abortion does not reduce abortion rates'.In my rebuttal to this point in argument 1, I presented a lot of evidence to refute this assertion. But since Con presents a new study here that displays a graph showing that 'abortion rates are lower in countries with liberal abortion laws'.However, it is clear from just glancing at the graph that there is another overlying factor at play here. The countries with the highest abortion rates are very poor regions such as Africa, south-east Asia, Central and Southern America, whereas the lowest rates of abortion are in rich regions such as North America, Europe, South Africa and Oceania. Here, we see a very clear correlation between low abortion rates and the prosperity of a given country; since abortion is often sought out of financial concerns, it follows that poor people are more likely to seek an abortion.Therefore, I contend that the reason that pro-choice countries generally have lower abortion rates than pro-life countries isn't because of their legal stance on abortion, but rather because generally pro-choice countries are richer than pro-life countries. ___(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://bit.ly...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly...(6) http://bit.ly...(7) Reardon, David - Aborted Women: Silent No More(8) http://bit.ly...