No abortion outside of extenuating circumstances should be permitted

FrameworkLibertyI will be broadly affirming the value of liberty within this debate, which is defined as the state of being free in society from oppressive restrictions on thought, action and values. It is no coincidence that the countries with highest human development index are those which generally value human autonomy and freedom of speech over autocracy. [1] I can accept Pro’s general axiom, that a government must enable a stable society in order to exist – thus if a government is to exist then it must provide this society in one manner or another – and human liberty is demonstrably an excellent manner of accomplishing such. Unfortunately however, we cannot allow infinite liberty for all people, and a limited government, which rules when one’s liberty impinges on another. In order to protect the liberty for all, then restrictions need exist – however with my arguments I will affirm that these impingements do not apply to all human pregnancy cases. [2]Human RightsWhen dealing with human rights, there are two ways to go about it:1. Start with no rights and have them granted from ground-up2. Start with all rights and have them limited from top-downThe first option here is patently absurd, since it would require legislating and permitting each and every action that one could ever conceivably take, and yes that includes actions we have yet to think about. It would also entail a totalitarian autocratic style of government, with freedoms ultimately limited by what the government deems fit to permit. The latter is the only sensible option when dealing with human (and non-human) rights, and thus very good reasons are required for restricting a person’s rights. [3]C1. Women’s Bodily RightsBodily & functional autonomy is one of the most fundamental and basic of human rights, bodily autonomy holds regardless of circumstances in society, one cannot be forced to donate blood, a kidney or provide medical support for any specific person, even if the condition is life-threatening. Furthermore, one cannot be forced to pay for the medical care of another. While it may be considered immoral to withhold such donations or treatments, this is the price we pay to have adequate liberty for a functional and stable society. [4]With regards to a foetus, a woman similarly ought not to be required to provide the use of her body for the survival, and development of a foetus, nor her financial input, nor provision of a share of her nutrients and other biological inputs. Foetus’ are unquestionable parasitic of the mother and entail a whole host of negative health effects on the mother including: induced nausea; soreness; fatigue; nutrient deprivation (e. g. calcium absorption from mother’s skeleton). Furthermore, pregnancy increases the risk for a whole host of issues, including back injury; hormone imbalances; physical impediment (which causes women to be unable to work); and hormonal/emotional imbalanced. [5]Furthermore, birthing a child mandates the mother to financially and physically commit to raising the child, which is a long-term drain and impingement on her liberty. Health risks even in modern days are severe, with an increased risk of death from health complications with an estimated incidence of 8.8 deaths per 100,000 – which compared with 0.6 deaths per 100,000 for an abortion, this disparity is much more prominent in less well-off countries. Given these negative effects on autonomy, health and health risks, it follows that it cannot be expected of a mother to carry a child to term against her own will. We do not expect this of any other area in life, including when other living, breathing, humans are involved – thus we cannot expect it of a foetus even if we considered it as valuable and as human as an adult [6]C2. Foetus’ lack identityClearly we do not generally approve of taking way the life of fellow adult humans, and doing so is concoctive to a destabilised society. However there are a plethora of reasons why this is the case:I. IdentityA person has a sense of identity, or “being me”, and while it is also most likely true for other beings for which it is deemed acceptable such as livestock, this is a necessary qualifier for having freedom and liberty. One cannot have liberty of thought without the ability to think, one cannot have liberty of speech if one is unable to communicate, and one cannot have liberty for action if one is yet to be born. Note that this resolution encompasses any and all abortions, including extremely early stage abortions. [6]For example, a foetus’s cell types is virtually undifferentiated until the forth week, where the first cells begin to form what is necessary for the brain, with the last component – the corpus callosum not emerging until the ~ 87th day. However, such a brain has still not yet developed the networks required for consciousness, awareness, sensory input, etc. Moreover, humans do not surpass even chimpanzees in intelligence and rationality until past the toddler stage – well beyond the age of pregnancy. Rationality is required to have liberty of thought and speech. [8]Thus, under no circumstances does a human foetus qualify as a being to which we need to consider the liberty of – thus a minimal government lacks sufficient reason for prohibiting abortion for these reasons. Even if one does not buy my premise that virtually all foetuses are not considerable in this judgement, my argument that at the very least early stage foetuses in principle impossible to have these liberties is sufficient to weigh this debate. II. Memory & ValuesChildhood amnesia is well-established in the literature, and it is well known that children do not retain knowledge or memories before ~2 years of age (well after the age at which abortion is possible), this ties in with my identity argument in that the only thing which allows one to identify as themselves is their memory of their previous state. A person who has no memory whatsoever of their “past self” is essentially a different person to them, that “past self” is dead, for all intents and purposes. If you imagine that your memories are going to stop recording this Saturday, and that there will be no record accessable to you of those recordings of your past self – this “barrier” is in fact inconceivable – as it is death. [7]This is important, since it is our identity that we value, and thus even if one rejects my liberty value, we have important reason to see why there would be a lack of values pertaining to a foetus. Killing a foetus results in no tangable loss of identity, since the foetus is easily incapable of forming viable memories for that four-dimensional identity to exist. It isn’t anything that isn’t going to cease existing shortly anyway. C3. Extenuating CircumstancesPro has confirmed with me that this resolution also encompasses foetuses that are conceived without consent on any level. For example – foetuses that are conceived as a result of rape, or failed contraception. Clearly in neither of these cases is there any scope for consent, yet prohibiting abortions as the resolution demands would entail a woman being forced to carry her attacker’s/estranged partner’s child to full term, while already under significant psychological trauma, and then be forced to raise said child for the next two decades. This is a gross violation of the woman’s liberty, and again virtually no other analogy relating it to other socially and legally acceptable practices are even remotely defensible. [9]C4. The alternativeHighly restrictive abortion laws do not actually correlate with decreased incidence of abortion. By restricting abortion we essentially drive the practice “underground”, with illegal abortions becoming prominent – these abortions lack the safety controls and health considerations that legal abortions have with brutal methodologies such as “beating a woman’s abdomen”, piercing the amniotic sac with a sharp object (e. g. coathangers) and the use of makeshift poisons. [9] Abortions are going to occur regardless of whether or not it is permitted in statute, and prohibiting it carries massively increased risk of complications, injury and death as a result. An excellent case study is in South Africa – where legalising abortion yielded a 90% reduction in abortion-related deaths. Abortion rates have been found by well-established studies to not change upon legalisation, with countries with strict abortion laws under a similar rate of abortion to those who do not. [10] Thus even if we assume a legal system which values harm over liberty – legalised abortion is a superior stance to restrictions. [11-12]SummaryI look forward to Pro’s rebuttals! References1. . http://www.law.harvard.edu...2. . http://www.aprenderlalibertad.org...3. . https://en.wikipedia.org...4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...5. . http://www.dailykos.com...6. . http://health.usnews.com.... health/articles/2012/01/23/abortion-safer-for-women-than-childbirth-study-claims7. . https://en.wikipedia.org...8. . http://www.nlm.nih.gov...9. . http://www.debate.org...10. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...11. . http://www.guttmacher.org...12. . http://www.guttmacher.org...