Abortion should be banned.

Since Pro brought up cases I will also while rebutting claims. Case one: Human developmentFrom the source it states a fetus will develop the feeling of pain between 7. 5 to 15 weeks. At 7. 5 weeks it will develop receptors around the skin. The abdomen receptors develop around 15 weeks. This might seem like Pro has a point but other facts were given by the source which was that "for neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, The review said. " It also states even after 19 weeks the neurons will have to extend to where pain is perceived which means a baby will develop pain between 23 and 24 weeks. Meaning an abortion can be done without the fetus feeling pain before 24 weeks. A painless death of the fetus would be the right thing to do if the child is not wanted for whatever reason. Source:Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says (LiveScience) Case two: Unwanted childrenUnwanted children would be considered children put into care. From the second source out of 770 people surveyed: “Two thirds of the young men and nearly half of the young women had been involved in some way with the juvenile or criminal justice system. ” From this I can state from the emancipated people from foster care homes majority of them do resort to crime. Someone does not turn to crime if their life was decent which means if you were able to make abortion illegal. I am going to assume that the numbers will rise and will increase the amount of people who will turn to crime. With abortion in place it will not be the case and more access of abortion is better than removing it which results in emancipated adults, Which were previously foster children, Turning to crime. In more detail 50. 8% have been arrested Source: afcars report #24 (Should be the first Pdf link) Case three: The impact of legalised abortionThis is from the Quarterly Journal of Economics 2001: “with high rates of abortion have experienced roughly a 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion regions since 1985. ” With abortion it has reduced crime in general. Meaning abortion does have an impact on other crimes and if the data is correct in a good way. I would also like to mention the report does not say it was because of abortion instead it states with states that have legalised abortion earlier the drop in crime appeared much sooner. Meaning Pro would be advocating for Abortion being banned and would see an increase in crime. Like you said earlier “the government has an inherent right to protect its citizens from harm. ” Which means you are advocating for harm thus by your own definition going against what a government should be doing. The document also implies that illegal abortion was reduced and the cost of abortions was also reduced due to abortion being legalised. Before Rov v Wade it was $400 to $500 now I am guessing would be in 2001 is $80. Source: The impact of legalized abortion on crime (Should be the first pdf file link) I would have liked to know your stance on contraception before so that we can agree or disagree on its use. Yes, It does remove the need for abortion if people who do not want abortion use contraception but as it stands contraception is not always available due to it not being free. Even though we might agree on contraception I still would not ban abortion. Reason is because freedom is better than restrictions. The blanket statement does only work at a point since I do not agree with someone taking someone else’s life but in general the less restriction we oppose the freer the people are. Freer people will have more options to live a fulfilling life thus not revolt against the state. I would also like Pro to not dodge the entire reason of this debate that the title clearly states “Abortion should be banned”. Pro has not even given evidence or reasons for how is this going to be the case. This “The law will be enforced. I am simply saying you can't stop 100% of abortions because OBVIOUSLY some people will find ways around it if they have to. But on the whole it will be effective and stop a majority of abortions. It is by no means 'meaningless' and unless you want to prove that more than 50% of the population will get around it then pipe down. “is not enough to make his side correct. This is not providing any evidence of his side being correct instead he pushed the burden on me to tell him why making abortion illegal would not work. I have with hypothetical scenarios with common items in a house (knives and stairs) yet Pro cannot even provide counter hypotheticals or even evidence (like in my Case Three) that would mean abortion is possible of preventing illegal abortion or where illegalising has worked as an example. So basically what I am gathering is that Pro wants abortion illegal because of morals not because it is pragmatic. An example of something immoral but since it cannot be pragmatically banned it is still around that would be prostitution. Prostitution can exist illegally and more than likely if both parties are able to keep secrets then the state cannot do anything if it was illegal. The problem is that if the law does not prevent abortion majority of the time then why even have the law in the first place? The meaningless part was an exaggeration but my point did get across. Another thing I would like to mention is that if you cannot provide evidence of legalised abortion working then I would like to know what the punishment would be if someone does abort a baby. “so to follow the assumption that the woman was raped is dangerous in that it teaches women that if they want the abortion all they have to do is scream rape even if they weren't raped. ” The NCBI (National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health) have already had this discussion. “the laws usually require women to undergo a medical examination to qualify for a legal abortion. ” Meaning they have already accounted for what you meant. Sure no mention of the 6-9 months court case but it is good enough to assume if medical examination was taking place the women would be able to abort due the evidence (which can be a rape kit) being required in court. Source: Rape as a legal indication for abortion: implications and consequences of the medical examination requirement. (NCBI) "If I murder someone and then claim that it was a 'mistake' and that I'll never do it again I cannot simply go unpunished. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions. The same way a lot of 16 year olds who chose not to be smart but knew exactly what they were doing will have to learn from them the same way. ” Problem with this is that the law does account for the thing I was stating. It is called involuntary manslaughter. About 16 year old women the prefrontal cortex is fully developed at the age of 25. Sure we do punish minors for other crimes but the punishment is reduced for minors so what would be the punishment of minors be for aborting a fetus? Should the minor be charged with murder? Source: Understanding the Teen Brain (URMC)Murder United States Law (Wikipedia) I know I did not address every single point (Doing other things) but have made my point clear. I would like as a must for Pro is evidence or explanation (both would be great) on how abortion will work and what would the punishment be for breaking the law you want in place.