Many Abortion Opponents are Despicable, because they are in it for the money

The resolution argues that opponents of abortion who are in it for the money are despicable. In order to uphold the resolution, my opponent must (A) prove the existence of anti-abortionists who hold the position solely for monetary gain, (B) prove that they are despicable, and (C) prove correct the standard on which he bases the supposition that holding profit over other things is despicable is correct.Contention. Creating Artificial Scarcity.In my opponent's argument, he argues that the motivation of many anti-abortionists is to create artificial scarcity for products and jobs by increasing the population at a faster rate then resource-production. He argues this based on the basic law of supply and demand whereby prices are determined in conjunction with the rise of one correlating with the decline of the other. If, my opponent argues, population increase while resource production stays the same, employers and owners of industry can pocket the increased profits due to lowered wages for employees and higher prices for products. The meat of my opponent's case lies in proving this fact which I will simply agree with seeing as it doesn't sufficiently prove his case. He must also show that some anti-abortionists oppose abortion for specifically this reason, something they never attempted to do over their case. In fact, in regards to the motivations behind anti-abortionists, all my opponent contends is that the ONLY way anti-abortionists can defeat this claim is to POSITIVELY do everything they can to increase production faster then population. Of course this is an impossible mis-characterization of where the burden of proof actually lies.--Burden of Proof--In making a positive contention, my opponent has assumed the burden of evidence in showing it to be true. This means that charging with someone gives him the responsibility of proving it. We cannot assume that he is right just because those whom the charge was leveled at have not refuted the claim. That's not how proof works. Consider a court case where the prosecutor simply says that my opponent robbed a bank because he likes money. Obviously this provides some sort of economic motive but is far from providing adequate evidence to prove that he robbed the bank. Furthermore, it does only that, provide a motive. But we can have contradictory motives can't we?For instance, my opponent might have a motive to get money, but probably has a rival motive not to go to jail and thus has a motive not to rob the bank. Likewise, corporate owners who are also against abortion may profit off of overpopulation, but my opponent's point totally ignores any other rival motives they might have, such as living in line with their religion or protecting what they see as the sanctity of life. My opponent never attempts to show why people who might profit off of overpopulation were not instead persuaded by their own religious or philosophical views on the matter, as we can see that most anti-abortionists are.A point which is just as interesting I would add is that my opponent never mentions a single name concerning supposed anti-abortionists who are in it for the money. Not one! Therefore he could not possible uphold his burden seeing as we can't even identify a single person that the resolution would apply to.Contention. Despicability and Moral Standards.The second part of my opponent's burden of proof, besides establishing the existence of purely financially motivated anti-abortionists (which he has failed to do), lies in proving that they are (A) despicable and (B) proving correct the standard which he uses to call them despicable. On this aspect of his evidential burden my opponent is completely silent. All we can surmise from his case is the standard itself which my opponent uses to make the claim i.e. that they supposedly favor profit over quality of life for some others. Now under a common sense conception of morality this would be correct, but a common sense conception is unjustified. My opponent has the burden to actually argumentatively justify this standard in order to prove that it is something other than a personal valuation. Why are these people (whom my opponent has not even proven to exist mind you) despicable? My opponent argues because they don't abide by his own personal values. But seeing as he has failed to prove the soundness of validity of these values themselves, I see no reason to accept the criticism as seriously correct or supporting the resolution. We are here dealing with categorical criticism, not value criticism. My opponent needed to prove that there behavior was objectively despicable i.e. objectively immoral and has failed to do so. Therefore the point and the resolution fail.