Abortion should be illegal

Thank you for that very cogent reply, Con.IntroductionCon is quite correct in his description of my burden of proof and I willingly accept it. As he stated, I must 1) prove that there is a harm inherent to abortion that warrants a reformation of the law and that 2) such a change in the law would decrease rather than increase harm to society. I would, however, nuance this by saying that I should not be required to prove that the law is The harm I shall be arguing that abortion causes will, quite obviously, be the destruction of innocent life. Con has granted my first contention as well as my second (with the caveat that there is, in his opinion, a difference between a human being and a person). Beyond asserting that it is poorly supported and perhaps mildly hyperbolic, he has also left my third contention untouched. Having established that abortion results in the termination of an innocent human life, what remains to be debated is whether or not this harm is of sufficient moral or ethical import to justify a law banning abortion.Before I close this introduction, I would like to briefly touch on Con's critique of my third contention. Con asserted that there are other moral wrongs that could hypothetically result in the destruction of the human race. My opponent failed to present an example of such a wrong, but I daresay that none of the standard pro-choice anti-values (violation of bodily autonomy, potential trauma, loss of choice, etc.) qualify. His critique is, therefore, irrelevant.RebuttalsOn humanity and personhoodIn his last speech, my opponent sought to delineate between a human being and a person (or, in his terms, a "human" and a "human being." I shall use the terminology of "human" and "person" common to this debate). He argued that only those human beings who had achieved personhood should be granted the right to life. However, "personhood" is not a scientific concept. One cannot prove using facts that a living human being has not yet transcended mere humanity and reached personhood by running a lab test. Rather, it is a philosophical concept that is baseless by nature. The only thing that allows us to categorize some humans as persons and others as sub-persons is our own preconceived notions. Such notions are prejudicial, arbitrary and unfounded.But even if we assume that the fetus is indeed something less than a person before reaching the point of viability, it does not follow that it is permissible to take its life. Let us suppose that mankind has developed the ability to “edit” the body of the fetus, even from the earliest stages of the pregnancy. Would it be moral to operate on a fetus so that it develops a deformity or disability? Is it ethical to purposefully cause the fetus to grow into person with no limbs, or perhaps a person who is blind? Most would say that it would not be. Within the context of the abortion debate, the question that must then be asked is, why is it morally acceptable to kill a fetus but not to maim it?Maiming the fetus would be wrong, in the view of some, because the fetus will eventually achieve personhood and will then be hindered throughout its life by its disability. One might infer from this that it would be acceptable to maim a fetus that is scheduled for abortion. This seems rather cruel and unethical, especially if the fetus has developed to the point where it can feel pain. But regardless of whether or not "personhood" has been reached, this argument shows that potential is of some value. If a potential person has a right to not be maimed, then we can infer that the future of the fetus gives it some intrinsic value, regardless of whether or not it is a person.As for Con's claim that a miscarriage would warrant an investigation under my worldview, I respond by saying that if this were so it would be warranted under his as well once the fetus had reached the point of viability. But that aside, this is somewhat of a ridiculous claim. Miscarriages were not investigated prior to Roe v. Wade unless there was good evidence that the mother had been actively involved, and we can assume that the same would be true if Roe v. Wade were overturned now.On the value of the mother in relation to the childEven if we accept that the life of the mother is of greater value than the life of the child, it does not follow that the mother has the right to abort the child. I see nothing in my arguments that require that we value the sperm and egg cells that potentially create life. In fact, I was very careful to point out that there is a moral difference between the destruction of life (which includes such things as sperm, bacteria and blades of grass) and the destruction of human life. And regardless, please explain how a ban on abortion makes mothers less capable of conceiving in the future. As for the issue of back-alley abortions, it is not the responsibility of the law to ensure the safety of those who break it. Also, it is important to put this in perspective. In 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, only (and it is a great shame that I am forced by pro-choice claims of thousands of deaths to use the word only in such a context) thirty-nine women died from "back-alley abortions."[1]On victims of rapeAllow me to open by saying that rape is a horrible thing and I have profound sympathy for anyone who experiences it.However, we have already established that there is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life. Also, I challenge Con to present an instance outside of the abortion debate in which he believes it is permissible to kill someone solely because they remind one of an unpleasant person or experience. Let's also keep in mind that only 1% of abortions are performed on victims of rape.[2]I would like to close this heading by asking my opponent to please indicate where exactly he found evidence for his claim that banning abortion contributes to the mental anguish of rape victims. I was unable to find such a statement on the page he sourced. On the fate of the childTo say that a disease or the likelihood to end up in an orphanage justifies abortion is somewhat heartless, especially coming from the side of the debate that touts itself as "pro-choice." To make the choice for the child that they would be better off dead is anti-thetical to everything the pro-choice movement claims to stand for. Allow me to point out that sickle-cell and alymphocytosis are curable.[3][4] It is also worth mentioning that Huntington's does not usually manifest itself until adulthood, even when present prior to birth, and even then it is only in severe cases that such symptoms as paranoia develop.[5]Demonstrating that children are poorly treated when they are unwanted is not justification for abortion. Rather it is a call for tougher measures against child abuse. After all, one could cite the same statistic in support of the right to terminate children who are already born.Also, since 46% of women who get abortions are using it as a form of birth control[6], we can assume that there would be far fewer children being conceived after abortion is no longer available, especially when a child is not wanted. In fact, it has been demonstrated that pregnancy rates are far lower where access to abortion has been limited, particularly among teens.[7] On classismAny number of laws can be said to be subject to classism. This does not mean that the law is necessarily bad. For instance, large corporations have the ability to circumvent minimum wage laws by outsourcing labor to overseas companies. Does my opponent believe that we should strike all laws requiring companies to pay their employees fair wages from the books? How about laws against child and slave labor?Sources1. U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease Control, as cited in Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, Abortion: Questions and Answers.2. http://www.guttmacher.org...3. http://news.uic.edu...4. http://www.rightdiagnosis.com...5. http://www.helpguide.org...6. http://www.womenscenter.com...7. http://oca.org...