THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few

IntroductionDespite the supposed flaws my opponent has picked out in my plan, my arguments still hold true. Abortion clinics ought to be constructed in areas where there are few.Rebuttals1. QualityMy opponent has argued that governmental control over abortion would significantly diminish the quality of abortion services, or at least cause stagnation. However, my opponent hasn’t shown the idea that government control causes stagnation to be a general fact, nor has Con shown that government control of abortion specifically would cause stagnation or a diminishing of quality; Con simply provided examples of failed governmental projects from countries like Yugoslavia and East Germany, both of which were communist states that by no means resemble the United States. Examples from other western liberal democracies such as Britain would be more relevant in determining how governmental control would affect the quality of abortion services because they have governments and cultures more similar to that of the United States. In countries like Britain, the NHS uses less money than its private counterparts but still maintains a similar standard of care[1], showing that government-controlled services could work out very well. Thus, we can see that abortion services would not be harmed by having some government control, since our government is more like Britain and less like the incompetent governments at Yugoslavia and East Germany.In addition, this motion would not actually give the government a complete control of the abortion “industry”; no place in the motion stated that private clinics would be banned. By introducing government-run clinics into the system to compete against private clinics, we actually give them more of an incentive to innovate rather than stagnate. 2. TaxationCon argued that by creating more abortion clinics, we are burdening low-income families with taxes. In reality, this is far from the truth. Our current taxation system is cutting taxes on the poor and raising taxes on the rich, who are very well able to stand taxation. [2][3] Thus, the effects of abortion clinics on the middle and lower class are negligible. Con has also argued that it is principally wrong to make people pay taxes for something they disagree with, regardless of if they have a good reason for opposing it. Since my plan to increase abortion clinics helps society, it is immoral to simply block it because some disagree with it. Some people disagree with funding the military because they think it’s immoral to fund wars. Others think they have an obligation not to support an education system because they disagree with what is taught in it. If we follow Con’s point, we would have a government that does nothing because it can’t make people pay taxes if they don’t like the purpose of the taxes.3. Free MarketCon has argued that making the free market build abortion clinics would be the best choice. However, my side of the house, in which government clinics would compete against private clinics, is actually superior; having the government compete against private businesses ultimately made fields like education better. [4] In addition, when we build government clinics in places with fewer clinics, we cause private businesses to also expand into these areas to capture the sales that the government is siphoning from their existing places. It’s a win-win for the consumer.ConclusionToday, we’ve had an opponent who has failed to prove that his solution of letting the free market manage abortion would be superior to a government-funded solution. I have, in fact, shown that government control can be actively beneficial. Thus, let it be resolved that THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few[1]http://www.neweconomics.org...[2]https://www.whitehouse.gov...[3]http://money.cnn.com...[4]http://www.theatlantic.com...