Should women have the right to an abortion

== Resolutional analysis == The resolution is framed in the form of a question, which states "Should women have the right to an abortion?" For clarification, let me analyze what exactly the resolution means. In conventional resolution format, it would be stated as: "Women should have the right to an abortion." In context, "abortion" obviously means intended termination of pregnancy. Since the resolution is normative, the burden of persuasion is shared (offense is expected from both sides). The usage of the word "should" means analysis of the net benefits and harms of each side in this debate. == My case == 1. Rational basis Before I start with the argument, I'll note that preventing a woman from having an abortion shouldn't happen without any benefits to that ban, because then it would be unnecessary paternalism - the law requires "rational basis" to be passed. Subpoint A: the right to life should not extend to fetuses Con says "the fetus is a human being." I agree. Most researchers also agree that "life" starts at conception. Many legal structures also grant a right to life to all humans. The question we're dealing with in this debate is whether that right to life *should* extend to the fetus. Legal methodology dictates that when two rights compete with each other, we must analyze the harms and benefits in a utilitarian standard, and we already have two rights to weigh here. The first right is the fetus' right to life. The second right is a woman's right to bodily autonomy (since the fetus is technically within her body). The reason we must weigh these rights is that rights are never absolute. The right to life *can* be infringed upon in circumstances where the benefits of doing so outweigh the harms. That's the reason that, in times of war, military conscription is legal -- it would save more lives. But I argue that the right to life extended to all "persons" shouldn't include the fetus, for at least 24 weeks. That's because it is impossible to factor a fetus before 24 weeks of development into an analysis of benefits and harms because the fetus cannot experience consequences at all. Analysis of "costs" and "benefits" presumes sentience, i.e. the ability to feel or perceive subjectively. The cost must have a negative impact on the person affected by it, while the benefit must have a positive impact. Emotional states are the only things that allow such positive or negative impact. Before 24 weeks, the fetus completely lacks the ability to subjectively perceive or experience emotions. The majority of research agrees that this is the case. [1] So Con's *only* benefit to banning abortion isn't a real "benefit," since nobody experiences such a benefit at all. Subpoint B: bans on abortions are ineffective Even if the fetus *does* have a right to life, it won't make a difference. A ban on abortion won't stop abortions from happening. In fact, there won't even be a *reduction* in abortions. Dr. Paul Van Look of the World Health Organization led a study that suggested 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." [2] Women are going to have abortions anyway. So whatever right to life the fetus has isn't going to be respected at all. Conclusion: there is absolutely no rational basis for a law on abortions, since it won't allow a fetus's right to life to be respected, nor will it stop or reduce the amount of abortions taking place. 2. Banning abortion harms women Subpoint A: women die from back-alley abortions As already established, abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and countries where it isn't legal. But there's a problem as to *why* that is the case: back-alley abortions. Back-alley abortions are abortions taken place in unsafe, illegal and non-medical conditions. When abortion is illegal, it's very tough to afford appropriate medical conditions and regulations expected in hospitals. So women go to places with poor medical facilities to get abortions, or attempt to self-abort. Such unsafe abortions lead to around 68,000 deaths annually (mostly in countries where abortion is illegal), along with *millions* of painful injuries. [3] The harm is huge. Banning abortion would have a significant impact on deaths. Subpoint B: people face psychological harms from being denied an abortion If a woman is denied a safe abortion, research suggests that she might face psychological harms (e.g. anxiety or depression). Rocca and Kimport, et al. explain that "[c]ompared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger . . . and less relief and happiness." [4] Subpoint C: self-ownership As mentioned, an abortion ban lacks rational basis. Governments should seek to avoid "paternalism" to whatever extent they can. If a person does something with no harm to non-consensual others, they should be allowed to do it. The idea is best captured by John Stuart Mill's harm principle, according to which "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against their will, is to prevent harm to others." Conclusion: banning abortion poses severe harms to society. Thus, (1) there is no rational basis for banning abortion at all and Con's arguments entirely fail, and (2) banning abortion poses severe harms to society. For those two reasons, vote Pro. [1] https://www.newscientist.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.who.int... [4] https://www.guttmacher.org...