Abortion should be legal

== Intro ==In this debate, I'll defend abortion being legal for some period in the pregnancy. This precludes Con from making arguments relating to abortion being immoral after a certain point in the pregnancy. The BoP in this debate is shared, both because of a lack of a clear status quo (though in most countries, abortion is legal) and because this is a normative resolution.Con needs to argue that abortion should be illegal *throughout* the pregnancy, with the two exceptions listed in R1. Note that Con has to defend bans on abortion even in cases where it is required for good mental health of pregnant individuals, and in cases where, for instance, contraception fails or there's fetal impairment. I also have fiat over measures to make abortion more safe, accessible, and cheap, and I support measures to ensure that.== My case ==I'm going to advance three claims: (1) that pregnant individuals have a right to abortion, (2) that allowing abortion prevents dangerous back-alley abortions, and (3) that legalizing abortion reduces the numbers of unwanted children in society, which is a benefit. Each of these three contentions affirms the resolution independently; if I win even one of them, vote Pro. (C1) Pregnant individuals have a right to abortionA. AutonomyBans on abortion prevent pregnant individuals from exercising a choice in terms of what they are allowed to do with their bodies. Governments ought not prevent people from exercising choices unless there is direct harm to others. As John Stuart Mill explains, "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." [1] If the state bans abortion, it prevents people from exercising free will. Why should states follow this standard of respecting free choice? There's three reasons for this: (1) The state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The harm principle acts as a mechanism to ensure that the state is protecting the will of its people. (2) The harm principle is the best utilitarian goal, because each individual is best placed to decide their own interests and to weigh their own pleasure and pain. Given that calculations of pleasure and pain are subjective, when these are felt by the same person, that person should be able to make these decisions. (3) Empirical evidence suggests that states with more political and social freedoms also have greater rates of human development. [2]Now, Con might argue that abortion harms the fetus, and is therefore immoral. However, the fetus isn't conscious until 24 weeks of pregnancy. Consciousness only arises between the 25th and 30th week of pregnancy. [3] [4] Given that the fetus is not a conscious person, killing a fetus is akin to killing a plant -- a living being which cannot feel. B. Self-defensePregnant individuals have a right to self-defense. People who are denied abortions face immense psychological harm. According to a University of San Francisco study, "women are much more emotionally stressed if they are denied an abortion initially than if they received one upon request." [5] A 2013 study by Roca, et al. concludes that "[c]ompared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied abortion felt more regret and anger, and less relief and happiness." [6]This offers an independent reason to allow abortion. First, it means there's significant harm to people who are denied abortions. The state has an interest in preventing psychological harm to its citizens. Therefore, abortion should be legal. Second, it means people should have a right of self-defense, against psychological harm. If Con concedes that abortion should be legal to protect the lives of pregnant persons, then they concede that there's a balancing of rights here. Given that the fetus cannot feel mental states, the right of people to escape psychological harm and exercise their autonomy outweighs. Conclusion: Given that the fetus is a non-conscious entity dependent on the parent for survival, banning abortion is an unjust restriction on the free will of individuals to control their bodies and to defend themselves against psychological harm.(C2) Allowing abortion prevents back-alley abortionsA. Bans on abortion cause people to turn to harmful back-alley abortionsThe alternative to legal abortion in licensed clinics is back-alley abortions. There's two warrants for this. First, on an analytical level, people continue to want abortions even when it's illegal. They're often in desperate positions which prevent them from having kids or are afraid of the emotional harm which will result. They also often don't have access to adoption, and don't want to carry the fetus to term. This means they're likely to turn to illegal means of abortion when they don't have access to safe, legal abortion.Second, there's empirical evidence that proves this claim. 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." [7] Indeed, back-alley abortion accounts for 13% of deaths due to pregnancy. [7] At least 22,800 women die each year from complications of unsafe abortion. [8] The reason these back-alley abortions are harmful is the lack of regulation and the lack of clinics to approach. Illegal clinics and pregnant individuals themselves (when self-aborting) tend to use brutal methods such as beating the abdomen hard, piercing the amniotic sac with a sharp object, and using poisons. [9] [10]B. Legal abortion reduces back-alley abortion ratesThere's two pieces of analytical justification for this. One, these unregulated clinics (as well as self-abortion) are illegal, meaning people are disincentivized from pursuing them, when there's access to legal clinics. Two, people recognize that a legal, regulated clinic is much safer. Together, this means that the existence of legal clinics takes down the business of unregulated abortion, due to a lack of demand.This is also empirically true. For instance, in South Africa, after abortion was legalized, abortion-related maternal mortalities reduced by ninety-one percent. [11] This means that, in Con's world, abortion continues, and is far more dangerous. Vote Pro because legal abortion saves the lives of individuals. (C3) Bans on abortion lead to more unwanted childrenBanning abortion means there's a large number of unwanted children, insofar as some people still choose to not break the law and don't engage in abortion. Adoption isn't enough to give homes and families to these children. Randie Bencannan of Rewire explains, "Recent statistics show that approximately 14,000 newborns are adopted annually in the United States through voluntary placements, a number that has remained flat for about 20 years. Meanwhile, in 2011, 1.06 million abortions were performed -- the lowest number in decades." [12] These children experience massive challenges. In some cases, they're sent to a broken foster care system. Children in foster care are four times more likely to experience sexual abuse than other children. [13] Moreover, as Pam Fessler of the National Public Radio notes, "many former foster kids have a tough time out on their own. When they age out of the system, they're more likely than their peers to end up in jail, homeless or pregnant. They're also less likely to have a job or go to college." [14] In other cases, they're retained by their families. In these cases, the children face significant problems. (1) They're more likely than other kids to die at an early age. According to one 2016 study in the US, "[S]tates with restrictive abortion policies increase IMR for black women by 2.214 infant deaths per 1,000 live births." [15] Another study in Finland found that children born due to denied abortions had an infant mortality rate of 24 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. [16] (2) They face economic and psychological disadvantages even in the long term. They perform worse in school, are more likely to face mental illnesses, and more likely to be poor. [16] (3) This hurts economic productivity. For instance, in Romania, "children born after the ban on abortions had worse educational and labor market achievements as adults . . . [and] crowding in schools, due to the large increase in fertility immediately following the abortion ban, lowered educational achievements of the cohorts affected." [17] There's even some evidence that legalizing abortion reduces crime rates, which, even if questionable, is disconcerting. [18]More unwanted children hurts the parents. Parents who're denied abortions are more likely to face psychological problems, have worse relationships, and are twice as likely to face intimate partner violence. [19] Moreover, women who are denied the ability to abort are also adversely affected in terms of economic productivity. Indeed, "[w]omen who were denied an abortion are three times more likely to be unemployed than women who were able to access one." [20] People denied abortion are also four times more likely to be pushed below the poverty line. [21] Conclusion: Banning abortion causes parents to have unwanted children without access to adoption, significantly harming the future prospects of these children, throwing these parents into poverty and unemployment, and causing significant negative impacts to society.For all the above reasons, vote Pro.Sources: http://www.debate.org...