Abortion should be illegal.

== Are there advantages to the plan? ==There are no significant harms to abortion, that outweigh any of the benefits that lie in keeping abortion illegal, and through this debate, we've shown you that. Pain. Pro's source merely discusses nervous system development. Pro doesn't prove that the existence of a nervous system means pain/pleasure can be experienced. Insects have nervous systems, but don't feel pain. Kate Connors of the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians explains, "The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not able to feel pain until the third trimester." [7] The nerves aren't wired up to the cortex, so information can't be transferred to the cortex for a pain experience. [8] Extend sources #1 and #2, which prove that fetuses don't feel pain until the third trimester. Psychological damage. One, these impacts don't compare at all to the impact from deaths as a result of illegal abortions. Two, there won't be a significant reduction in the number of abortions anyway (as I will show below), so this doesn't really have a significant impact. Three, counseling sessions -- for both men and women -- have been demonstrably effective in reducing/eliminating depression and anxiety resulting from abortions. [9] Finally, and most importantly, the links between psychological harms and abortion are very dubious, and are probably correlations (not caused by abortion). Researcher Susan A. Cohen shows that all studies that indicate this have poor methodology, conflate correlation and causation, and just take random samples that aren't reliable at all. [10] Also, none of the research applies to rape.Solvency. Pro doesn't prove (and it's their burden to prove this, since all their offensive arguments rely on this) that banning abortion will reduce the abortion rate or number of fetuses killed. Pro brings up abortion rates in various countries, but doesn't show that the ban actually influenced the correlation, or that the same would apply in the United States. I also have alternate numbers of my own. Let's look to Pro's numbers anyway. In the United States, there's an abortion rate of 20.8 per 1,000 women (Pro's own spreadsheet). Susheela Singh, et al. find that the abortion rate in Uganda, where abortion is illegal, has a rate of 54 per 1,000 women. [13]== Disadvantages ==(1) RapeFirst, the argument isn't "irrelevant." I argued that, in Pro's world, rape victims face nine months of immense pain without any choice to relieve the pain, when it's possible to do so. That pain is avoided by abortion. Pro doesn't address that rape victims are non-consensually stripped of the ability to choose to avoid pain. We have an option to change their conditions, and no reason not to change their conditions, so we ought to allow abortion in cases of rape. Pro says it isn't the violinist's fault that the woman is being harmed. But it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. Killing the violinist will remove the pain. It's that simple. Second, not allowing abortions in cases of rape is dangerous to the people who've been raped and to the children as a result. For a mother who raises a rape-conceived child or even carries it to birth, it's a constant reminder of the trauma faced during the oppressive act of rape. Rape is inherently an act of oppressive power and of ruthless dominance. It exists to terrorize and to humiliate, to infringe on a fundamental right of a person, and to make them feel like they don't have a choice. The mother relives that oppression while raising that child. Both mother and child face ostracism in such societies. [11] Pro might say "adoption is always an option," but many parents don't choose that option in that moment of weakness, and they're forced to undergo the consequences. Furthermore, there are psychological harms from merely *giving birth* to a child from rape. [12] Mothers shouldn't be forced to carry children they don't want to carry when they didn't choose to carry the child. (2) Back-alley abortionsPro only addresses the aspect of the disadvantage that was defensive, and dealt with the solvency of Pro's plan. Pro drops the number of deaths from illegal abortions. Pro says 40-50 million fetuses that die from abortions outweigh this, but I've already proven that fetuses don't have moral consideration. Irrespective of that, fetuses *do* die from back-alley abortions, because the *mothers* die. When a mother dies during pregnancy (and when the fetus isn't due to be delivered), the unborn child dies within minutes, at least if 24 weeks or so haven't passed. [14] That's called "fetal viability." Also, Pro doesn't prove solvency anyway, so our impact outweighs. Since there are two major disadvantages to banning abortion, and no advantages to banning abortion at all, vote Con. [7] http://www.livescience.com...[8] https://www.newscientist.com...[9] http://brainwaves.msmc.edu...[10] https://www.guttmacher.org...[11] http://www.slate.com...[12] http://georgetownlawjournal.org...[13] https://www.guttmacher.org...[14] Keith More and T. Persaud, "The Developing Human," p. 109