DDO Olympic Debate: That the Hyde Amendment Ought to be Repealed

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Per the rules, I'll be responding to his opening arguments.My opponent presents two core arguments here: first, that the Hyde Amendment harms low-income women, and second, that it harms society. I will respond to both. My opponent's arguments about the Hyde Amendment harming low income rely on two key ideas: first, that not having access to taxpayer-subsidized abortion is harm, and second, that it restricts their ability to decide whether or not to have a family. Neither of these claims are accurate. To begin with, he notes the cost of abortion, arguing that low-income women have no means to pay for abortion - which can cost up to $3,000. To begin with, his numbers are way off - it does not cost $3,000 to get an abortion. According to Planned Parenthood, the cost of an abortion varies; pills cost between $300 and $850, while vacuum/suction abortion costs between $300 to $950.[1] Second, my opponent's quote that "more than a million women have been denied the ability to make their own decisions about bringinga child into the world" is ludicrous. Abortion is, in fact, not the only method to avoid pregnancy. By having unprotected sex (which can be prevented by birth control that costs between $0-50 a month[2] or condoms that cost even less), couples subject themselves to the consquences. Why is it the role of government to provide elective abortions as birth control? This is a radical stance; abortion is not birth control and should not be used as such. Women interested in avoiding pregnancy have a vast array of options. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, supported birth control - she found abortion abhorrent.[3] If my opponent is seriously interested in helping low-income women, a better option might be to promote education about birth control and safe sex. My opponent himself even admits this.As my opponent notes, the Hyde Amendment covers abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. He argues that women with other health conditions aren't covered; even if we assume this is true, why is it necessary to repeal the Hyde Amendment? If this is such a serious issue, it would be easier to push for a broadening of the "life of the mother" definition - keep in mind that the Hyde Amendment is not a single bill, but an amendment put into appropriation bills. This has happened before - the Hyde Amendment initially stopped all abortions, but eventually did allow them in the cases listed above.[4] Such an option, if it is such a major issue, would surely be a valid compromise position. Second, my opponent provides a very minor argument claiming the Hyde Amendment harms society. He argues that unwanted children are more likely to be prone to issues. This is a silly argument. We cannot, in fact, predict the future. Many of our greatest figures in society arose from broken homes. Is my opponent arguing for mandatory abortion for low-income women? Surely this would be a productive solution to this problem, no? But at some level, this comes off as morally wrong - and it comes off as morally wrong to argue it in this case, either. Roe v. Wade notes abortion as a personal, not cultural, issue. It is the role of the woman to decide, not of society. In turn, such a personal issue cannot receive public funding either way. If abortion is, in fact, an issue of societal importance, then we need to set up regulations to restrict it further.Also, I find my opponent's "harms" a bit strange. Is it better to have limited education, or to be dead? Is it better to have learning disabilities, or be dead? Is it better to be poor, or be dead? On all these fronts, my opponent seems to say "yes". Similarly, my opponent argues that abortion "lowers the infant mortality rate". Why would you tout that less infants will die, when abortion kills infants? That assumes a lot of things my opponent has not proven, such as whether or not abortion is murder or whether or if it is ethical to kill people on the basis that less people will die? I don't think any of these presumed societal benefits to low-income abortion to be clear-cut, frankly.I turn it over to my opponent for his rebuttal.References:1. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...2. https://www.plannedparenthood.org...3. http://www.redstate.com...4. https://en.wikipedia.org...