Resolved: A just society ought to ban abortion

Thanks, Con. Introduction Refutations http://www.christiananswers.net... http://www.prolifeinfo.ie... TBR's main argument goes as such P1: The government should not try to impose morality onto people but should instead let them decide P2: Banning abortion imposes morality onto women. C: Banning abortion is wrong. This logic is quite fallacious. Every law nowadays "imposes morality" in one way or another. Laws against slavery "impose morality". Back in the 1800's, the argument for slavery was popular sovereignty, or that people should be allowed the choice of slavery. TBR says:"Pro-choice has no interest in forcing their morality on pro-life therefore pro-choice is a default while pro-life must have intervention in personal life choices. ""While the act of aborting a fetus may be considered immoral to some, it is not to all. Allowing a woman to make a choice in keeping with her moral, and not subjected by another's is socials balanced morals. Substitute in slavery: "Pro-slavery has no interest in forcing their morality on anti-slavery therefore pro-slavery is a default while anti-slavery must have intervention in personal life choices. ""While the act of slavery may be considered immoral to some, it is not to all. Allowing a person to make a choice in keeping with her moral, and not subjected by another's is socials balanced morals. " This logic is false because the government's job is to find the best system of morality and use it in laws. By TBR's logic, we should have a system of popular sovereignty in which we can choose to own slaves. Bodily Autonomy " Further, a person who feels that government has the right to intervene is violating the woman's right to body integrity." TBR claims that banning abortion violates rights to your own body. However, this is clearly untrue, as the fetus is its own body with its own DNA, not "part of the mother". Abortion violates the fetus's bodily autonomy by killing it. The mother's right to choose ends where the other person begins. This argument turns to Pro because the fetus is the one with bodily autonomy being violated. http://www.personhoodinitiative.com... "The CDC reports that ~730k legal abortions were performed in 2011, or about 13.9 in 1,000 made this choice for their greater happiness. Denying abortion would unquestionably diminish happiness for a great number of women." Con claims that banning abortion would diminish happiness of many people seeking out an abortion because they would have more interference in their lives. I refute this by the fact that the fetus is dying too, and will never have the chance to experience ANY happiness in their lives. See FLO argument. Extensions Alright, we agree the fetus is a human and alive; anyone could see that. But TBR attempts to outweigh this, with the choice of not being pregnant vs. life. Life is the most important right you can have because without life, you don't have the ability to choose anything. The fetus is an innocent with FLO (which goes unrebutted). Life is also a human right. Conclusion Give Con conduct point, however, the argument of FLO is unrefuted by Con. In order to justify killing innocents, Con attempts to bring up that people should be able to choose what is moral for them and bodily autonomy, however, killing a human deprives them of the choice to be happy (FLO) and violates the bodily autonomy of the fetus.