Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances

Thanks for responding. REBUTTAL Re: Fetus = Human My opponent first noted that he’ll focus on the fetus because most abortions happen in the fetal period. This is false, since he didn’t give a source, I’d like to point out that 9 in 10 abortions in the US occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy {1a} {1b}. That means that the fetus isn’t fully developed yet {2}, which means that the pregnancy is still in its embryonic period {3a}. An embryo is not (yet) a fetus and it’s also not a person and therefore doesn’t have rights. The embryo is not viable or sentient, it cannot survive outside the uterus/womb {3b} so it would be ridiculous to grant them rights. As for his argument on fetuses being human, as you can see, all my opponent has argued that a fetus has life and that it will eventually be human, this is insufficient. It needs more concise evidence, PRO needs to prove that a fetus is conscious, that it is sentient and is aware of its surroundings, existence, thoughts, sensations. But still, this fetus = human argument isn't enough and doesn't entirely mean that we should illegalize abortion. Considering that I’ve shown that the vast majority of abortions occur in the embryonic period, this argument pretty much falls. Furthermore, PRO must prove that an embryo is still as equal as a fetus or a human being, he also needs to show sufficient proof that it is enough to ban them. I’m expanding my rebuttal on this in my contentions below. Re: Abortion: Economical Disadvantage? My opponent seems to be confusing us with calculations and claims that the USFG could have saved 21 trillion USD if Roe wasn’t decided because 50 million un-aborted people could’ve lived by now and each would have earned an average of $42K. This is utterly ridiculous and misleading. Out of those 50 million, how can you say for sure that they didn’t migrate to other countries, or if they even have a decent job, or if they died or have an illness. How can you say for sure that if Roe was overturned by then, this won’t affect 50 million abortions? Women will still abort nevertheless, since they have the means and free will to do whatever they want, regardless of the rule of law. Overall, this argument is a shallow attempt made by PRO which is ambiguous. Next, abortion costs vary {4}, but it isn’t necessarily $350 since there are private orgs funding women and helping them on family planning. There are clinics that provide cheap abortions for women who are poor. There are also state-funded clinics that operate on these practices. So this just means that the state has some profits. Also, since an average of 1.21 million abortions happen each year {1a} and if we multiply that to the costs ($300 to $1000 approx.) {4}, the total would be over $1B profit. Seriously an economical advantage. But let’s look at the downside, if we illegalize abortion, back alley abortions will happen anyway. Would you want the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state? CASE These are my contentions for now, I reserve the right to drop or add more arguments & references later on. C1: Morality This premise actually irrelevant to the topic since this is too broad and controversial. Morality and religion has nothing to do with the legislature and that the government has no obligation to enforce morality to human rights. Furthermore, my opponent failed to show that killing innocent human beings (in this case, the fetuses) are wrong. It seems he forgot, but nevertheless, I will show you why this is not always the case. Utilitarianism A simple definition of Utilitarianism is that it determines the moral worth of an action only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences {5}. Now, a moral philosopher, Judith Thomson offered a thinking experiment {6} {7}: Imagine waking up one morning and find yourself attached to a famous violinist by means of a long tube, that violinist is unconscious. Doctors tell you that if you remove this tube, the Violinist will die. Doctors also tell you that you have to limit your time and you have to eat more. Also, because a parasite-like being is attached to you, you can’t go to work because you cannot concentrate and may suffer from public humility. What if you are poor and you need to work? Is it permissible to kill the violinist? What would most people do? This argument theory proves that even though fetuses/embryos have the right to life, it’s still morally permissible to abort them. Thomson argued that it is. She says that the right to life does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. This moral argument relates to women’s rights and why fetuses shouldn’t have rights. See below. C2: Fetus Argument Since the vast majority aborts during the embryonic period, I’m not sure why we need to debate the fetus’ biological form since it has no relevance to the illegalization of this practice, but I’ll proceed anyway. A fetus being human is highly a controversial issue and it will probably never end. Fetus not legally human. Though a fetus can be described as a human being, a member of the Homo sapiens, it is not a sentient human being that is a full-fledged member of society. It is neither conscious nor viable. Thus making it not have rights and must not receive the same rights as fully developed humans. If we declare abortion murder should we declare miscarriages manslaughter? Furthermore, as I said, my opponent needs to provide accurate evidence on fetuses having almost the same aspects as fully-developed human being. ‘Having a life and eventually being a human’ is NOT enough. Fetus not really innocent Addressing the theory presented, J.T stated that even if the embryo/fetus has a right to life, it does NOT have a right to use the pregnant woman's body, so technically, the fetus is not at all innocent as it invades the woman’s privacy and violates women’s rights. Ergo, abortion is permissible in certain circumstances. C3: Illegalization Downside I’m running out of characters, so I’ll make this brief and continue next round. Violates Rights The mother’s right to life is essential, and if we illegalize abortion, we are violating that right. There are many scenarios where the mother’s life is at risk unless she aborts, if we deprive them of aborting, we are not only killing the mother, but also giving society a bad name. It also violates dignity and respect. Women who are raped should not suffer 9 months of carrying a child she did not want, especially if she is poor. A woman should not suffer or be forced to carry a fetus for months. This is a breach to human dignity. The government has the obligation to protect its citizens from harm, if a doctor knows that the baby is ill in the womb, he should advice the mother for her to make a decision. Criminalization also deprives women on the right to choose and healthcare. Since I’ve shown that illegalizing abortion violates rights and that it poses a danger to women, this practice should remain legal. Esp. in the circumstances of rape, incest, health risks, medical need, etc. Crime Before Roe, illegalization didn’t reduce abortions. the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year, this is almost the same as the number of legal abortions now, we can also assume that millions of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion, this process is more dangerous, expensive and of course, unlawful {8}. The NY times also showed statistics that abortion whether legal or not will not change society {9}. CONCLUSION In other words, I’ve shown that illegalizing abortion is very much a disadvantage to economy and society and does more harm than good. I’ve negated my opponent’s premises and made my arguments. I await PRO’s response. Good luck! CITATIONS http://goo.gl...