Abortion should be illegal

== Intro ==I intend to argue the following: (1) abortion bans violate the right to bodily autonomy; (2) banning abortion leads to dangerous back-alley abortions; and (3) abortion leads to more unwanted children. The word "should" refers to an obligation on the part of the government. I believe that the goal of the government is to act toward a stable society (i.e. to act in the general interest of society). This is a very broad and generally well-accepted value, which should apply because the objective of government is to ensure the stability of civilization, to act in the interests of the people in general. C1) AutonomyAbortion bans violate the right to liberty and autonomy. There are two links I'm going to establish here: first, abortion bans prevent the autonomy of individuals, and second, the government should preserve individual liberty. Bans on abortion prevent women from exercising the choice to do something. The only legitimate basis on which the government can prevent individuals from doing any action which they consented to doing is when there is a harm to a non-consensual individual. According to John Stuart Mill, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." [1] Only then can the State legitimately exercise power over individuals; else, it becomes illegitimate for not being one that is consensual. [2]Under this "harm principle," abortion shouldn't be illegal, because there is no *harm* being done to a non-consensual other. Harm to the fetus is not a sufficient argument because the fetus is not sentient until 24 weeks. [3] Before 24 weeks, therefore, the fetus cannot perceive any harm to itself -- it doesn't have interests. A harm is, by definition, a violation of a being's interests. Any concept of "harm" becomes incoherent when there are no interests or desires at play. Since the fetus can't perceive harm, harm cannot be done to the fetus, which means abortion doesn't harm anyone. I'll address any other potential "harms" in direct rebuttal to Pro's case. So, in short, abortion is a self-regarding act and there's no "harm" to anyone who doesn't consent to it. Therefore, it's not legitimate for the government to ban it. Why is liberty the best standard to place on the government? I'm going to provide three reasons. First, the harm principle acts as the limiting principle to the government. It limits political power to the *consent* of individuals. [2] This means it allows the State to retain legitimacy and remain a consensual exercise of power. Second, the harm principle is the ideal limiting principle because it is the best means to uphold the interests of the people. This is because the *each individual* is best qualified to decide their interests, since those are subjective. Thus, whenever possible, those individuals should be allowed to make decisions on their own. Liberty offers a strong metric for upholding the overall good of the people. Third, demonstrably, more liberal countries tend to have greater standards of human development. It's generally well-accepted that more civil liberties equals better development. Economists have frequently tied greater civil liberties to economic development. [4]Since the harm principle is the best limiting principle on the government, and abortion bans violate this principle, bans on abortion are illegitimate. C2) Back-alley abortionsAbortion bans cause more back-alley abortions (i.e. unsafe illegal abortions). When there are no legal/regulated abortion clinics, women turn to self-abortion or illegal abortion clinics when they are unsure of whether their baby will get adopted, either (1) in desperate positions that prevent them from having kids, or (2) *really* don't want to have kids. There's substantial empirical evidence for this. Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times explains, "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." [5] This study proves that banning abortion doesn't save fetal life -- instead, it puts the lives at risk. These back-alley abortions are particularly harmful due to the lack of regulation. The lack of sufficient controls means that illegal clinics and women themselves (when self-aborting) tend to use brutal methods such as beating a woman's abdomen hard, piercing the amniotic sac with a sharp object, and using poisons. [6, 7] The WHO explains that, as a result of unsafe abortion in illegal contexts in developing countries alone, "an estimated 68,000 women die as a result, and millions more have complications, many permanent." [8] If abortion is legal and clinics are regulated, however, these back-alley abortions reduce, because (1) women are deterred from pursuing dangerous/unregulated clinics when there are better quality and possibly cheaper legal clinics available, and (2) illegal clinics are, as a result, competed out of business and stop functioning entirely. In South Africa, after abortion was legalized, abortion-related maternal mortalities reduced by 91%. [9] D.A. Grimes, et al. explain, "Access to safe abortion improves women's health, and vice versa, as documented in Romania during the regime of President Nicolae Ceausescu." [10] Banning abortion causes tens of thousands of deaths every year, and would still be meaningless in practice because abortion rates will hardly reduce -- fetal life, therefore, isn't saved either. Since the government should pursue policies that act in overall social good, and banning abortion is a social harm, the government shouldn't ban abortion.Since a ban on abortion would violate individual autonomy and prompt dangerous back-alley abortions, Vote Con in today's debate. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] Andre Soubiran, "Diary of a Woman in White," p. 98[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...