Countries Undergoing Demographic Transition Should Ban Abortion

I'll go through my opponent's case quickly, as most seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the demographic transition.Firstly, my opponent says "the demographic crisis is worsening", without citing any reasoning for this. The only actual example provided is Bulgaria. The reason that this is a terrible example to use is, firstly, it is not solved by the demographic transition. As the source my opponent provides states, the major causes include massive, repeated exodus of people from the country, such as the 310,000 turks leaving the country[1] being one of many times when masses of people left the country. Further, the nation itself just left the Soviet Union: "The enormous political, economic and social changes which have taken place in central and eastern Europe since the end of the 1980s have had a significant demographic impact"[2]. Finally, and most importantly, this country is one with a very different political, economical and even social difference to other countries. The motion is "countries undergoing demographic transition", but even if one concedes this point, this does not affirm the resolution. My opponent ahs to show how this anomolous case translates into being true for the general norm of countries in the demographic transition.200,000My opponent claims this is a large number. In a decade, banning abortion stops 2,000,000 people. In a decade (2001-2011), Britain's population grew by 4,000,000. Yet my opponent's argument needs Britain's population to be shrinking, not growing, in order for his argument to be substantiable. There is a clear inconsistency between my opponent's case. Underage women supportBoth my opponent's solutions are either evil or impractical. In the middle of a recession, my opponent wants to spend more money looking after 200,000 people. To help a child survive, the state would need to give another £210,000(the cost of upkeeping a child[3]. Britain, with an already massive welfare state, would need to pay an additional 43,000,000 a year. For reference, britain's welfare state pays 80,000,000,000 already. This increase would further be done to create a totalitarian regime, something we must avoid. The other option is, quite simply, foolish. The current chidren needing adoption in britain is 4000 a year, and we can't get this tiny amount adopted. My opponent's suggestion is to essentially trying to teach the proverbial pig how to fly by saying "flap your wings". It's not thought through.Then, my opponent simply tries to promote a more totalitarian regime, by promoting the murder of the elderly. I shall make my point simply, as tihs hardly needs rebuttal: if this is convincing to you, and you are convinced that we need to kill those who cannot work, then I would urge you to give this point to my opponent. But if you actually care for those who are in our society, then I urge you to dismiss this point. If you believe in the sanctity of developed life, then you must vote against my opponent. Pro-social lifeMy opponent's argument is inconsistent, when he promotes the killing of the elderly: my opponent promoting the culling of the elderly is certainly not socially acceptable. Further, his medical point contradicts his position of promoting social life, as he is essentially promoting mandated pregnancy to make soldiers for the state. Finally, my opponent dismisses democracy becomes some countries don't want abortion. Firstly, we should take note of the implications of the second best case of a country banning abortion is Malta. Partly due to how small the country is, with a population of under half a million, but also due to the fact it legalises abortion in many circumstances, and the punishment is usually - as my opponent's source states - "18 months...[though] abortive procedures [are] performed within Maltese territory with no repercussions". But still, this proves my point, not my opponent's: as long as countries undergoing demographic transition are in the majority for its legalisation, then it is still a democratic imperative to legalise it. Further, laws going against public opinion are, by definition, undemocratic. If a law passes against the will of the people, this is what an undemocratic law is. Almost all of my opponent's solutions, impacts and general argumenation promotes intuitively repulsive ideas that go against democracy, and instead promote biopolitics: my opponent's argument, by its own nature, has horrible implications. For this reason, one must take into account, "is it convincing?". If you do not support the mass senicide of a population for a totalitarian, oppressive regime, I urge a vote CON.1 - http://www.mongabay.com... 2 - http://www.seep.ceu.hu...3 - http://www.guardian.co.uk...