THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few

Pro stated in the Round 1:"Model:In this debate, this house shall be modelled as the United States, where both politicians and citizens are more opposed to abortions than their counterparts in other western liberal democracies. This proposal means that the government would construct an abortion clinic in each city where there is none." As per this model I will argue that the united states government should not construct an abortion clinic in cities where there are none and that abortion clinics should be legalized and should have any and all regulations be significantly reduced if not wholly removed in order to allow for the market to create its own abortion clinics as a result of supply and demand, fostered and improved by the competition between abortion clinics that would exist in a free market. Oftentimes government control of a commodity causes that commodity to lose its quality.The reason why there are so few abortion clinics in the united states is because of prohibitive government regulations and sticky legal concerns, plus the high risk of starting an abortion clinic considering that the laws for abortion clinics and their legality is so unstable at this time. We don't need more government, we need less.1. Abortion clinics would be improved where legalized and significantly deregulated:Pro states that the government should be the one to make abortion clinics in cities where there are none, in other words advocating for government controlled abortion clinics in the united states.There are various examples of government control of a commodity resulting in that commodity's loss of quality.In communist East Germany, the Trabant was a vehicle which was built under East Germany's strict regulations and controls and is known as a very poorly made vehicle for many years."Due to its outdated and inefficient two-stroke engine (which produced poor fuel economy for its low power output and thick, smoky exhaust), and production shortages, the Trabant was regarded with derisive affection as a symbol of the extinct former East Germany and of the fall of the Eastern Bloc."[1]And because of government control of its production, the technology would stagnate and would improve only very slowly for abortion technology. As in the example of the yugo, the yugo:"was produced for nearly 30 years with almost no significant changes"[1]The Yugo, another vehicle produced under government regulations in socialist yugoslavia, has been named amongst one of "the 50 worst cars of all time" according to TIME:"Built in Soviet-bloc Yugoslavia, the Yugo had the distinct feeling of something assembled at gunpoint. Interestingly, in a car where "carpet" was listed as a standard feature, the Yugo had a rear-window defroster — reportedly to keep your hands warm while you pushed it. The engines went ka-blooey, the electrical system — such as it was — would sizzle, and things would just fall off."[2]Imagine what the practice of abortion would look like under government monopoly, control, and regulation in light of these examples alone. Imagine what your abortion would look like if your abortion doctor inserted a foot-and-a-half long hypodermic needle into your body and then, as TIME so graphically puts it for the yugo, it "went ka-blooey". Under government control, abortion technology would stagnate over time and have its quality diminished.2. Who will pay for these government controlled abortion clinics?Practically all the money used by the government is money taken under threat of imprisonment from the people of the united states. Thusly, not only would the quality of abortion clinics be badly hindered by government control, but taxpayers will be paying for these horrible quality abortion clinics whether whether they have the money or not, and whether they like it or not. I will make this point in two parts:A - For starters, people working low wage jobs would be seriously hurt by an increase in taxes to pay for these abortion clinics. Trying to live on a low wage job is extremely difficult. Even one dollar - even spare change - can make a world of a difference if you are trying to feed yourself with a job that pays $9 an hour, or, in some states, even less than that. As of right now, in 2016, the minimum wage in Idaho is only $7.25 an hour. In Georgia, a mere $5.15 an hour [3]. An increase in taxes for these low wage workers could be devastating.B - Furthermore, forcing people to pay for something which is so polarized over its controversial status is wrong; many people believe that abortion is tantamount to murder of a child. Imagine forcing people to pay for euthanasia whether they like it or not. Imagine forcing people whos families were ruined by heroin addiction to pay for safe injection sites for heroin addicts. Imagine forcing LGBT persons to pay for conservative christian missionary organizations in africa which try to teach african tribes about a love-centered religion on the one hand while encouraging those tribes to become homophobic on the other hand. Forcing people to pay for abortion whether they like it or not is far from ethical by any stretch of the term.3. Supply and Demand, and Free Market Competition, would be a better answer to the United State's abortion problems.Although Keynesian economics falls short in its advocacy for government intervention, it's one good observation is this: aggregate demand of a good will increase the economic output of that good.So lets say that there is aggregate demand for abortion - and there is - and lets apply it to the united states. Many people want abortions. Thus, many businesses would appear which would create the supply for those abortions. Furthermore, as observed by the austrian school of economics: "The market economy develops out of people’s natural inclination to better their situation and, in so doing, to discover the mutually beneficial exchanges that will accomplish that goal."[4] and "severe doubt would be raised about the ability of government officials to intervene optimally within the economic system, let alone to rationally manage the economy."[4]The best thing about leaving abortion to the free market is competition. According to econlib.org, competition is what led to "unprecedented material progress since the industrial revolution".Specifically:"Suppliers also engage in nonprice competition. They try to improve their products to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals. To this end, they incur the costs and risks of product innovation. This type of competition has inspired innumerable evolutionary steps—between the Wright brothers’ first fence hopper and the latest Boeing 747, for example. Such competition has driven unprecedented material progress since the industrial revolution."[4]By leaving abortion to the free market, abortion clinics would still be created, and free market competition would ensure that the quality of abortion clinics would continue improve dramatically.Conclusion:Thus, I conclude that government control/monopolies of abortion clinics would reduce the quality of of abortion clinics and abortion technology would stagnate. Furthermore, abortion would be paid for by horrendously unethical means. Leaving abortion to the free market would allow abortion clinics to be formed out of demand for them, and the technology and quality of abortion clinics would significantly improve.[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - http://content.time.com...[3] - https://www.dol.gov...[4] - http://www.econlib.org...[5] - http://www.econlib.org...