Countries Undergoing Demographic Transition Should Ban Abortion

Firstly, my opponent's entire argument is essentially, from what I can tell, "If a country is experiencing demographic transition, then it should be banned for the majority of cases. " I agree that demographic transitions occur in the countries mentioned - though there are exceptions in Europe, such as France. However, the reason that this should cause abortion is lacking. The reason is essentially because "This could vastly harmful economic effects on society as a whole. " None of these are stated. In reality, the economic impact would be worse from not having abortions. My opponent's lack of evidence for this claim - and its extremely vague nature - shows the lack of real reason behind this. Firstly, the major economic problem caused by DT (Demographic transition) is that too many people become over the age of being able to produce more than they "take up" in the economy. For example, those living on a pension do not produce to society, but take from it instead. However, the same is true of children: they cannot produce, they only take up resources. In fact, they arguably do so more than the elderly in many cases. Banning abortions will compound this problem. Secondly, the criminalisation of abortion will not remedy this population deficit. Abortion in the UK is roughly 200,000 a year[1]. My opponent is yet to prove that stopping abortion will remedy this situation. Finally, the majority of abortions are done for underage women[2]. As this being the case, the economic impact of legalising abortion will certainly be negative for these parents, not positive. Now, to make a case in favour of abortion:Simply, my argument is as follows : Abortion is the termination of cells. Cells are not alive. Therefore, Abortion has no real impact. If abortion has no real impact, then everyone should be able to have it as an option. First, let's define Abortion: The cessation of pregnancy or fetal development. So an abortion is simply halting a process. I am sure the honorable gentleman will refer to the "child" being "alive", but it is not. A fetus cannot love outside the mother until the very end of the third trimester: This is not abortion. When a child is existent, they are no longer a "fetus". A fetus is an embryo after the eighth week of development until birth. This means a child only becomes a child when it is removed from the body via birth. The idea that the fetus is alive, which I am sure will be the main point of my opposition's argument, is unnecessary and flawed. A fetus is not developed as a person: It cannot live independently. It cannot "learn". It cannot "feel" for most of its life. Remember, I am not saying disallowed for all circumstances, but for all people. Everyone should be entitled. Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and most say they don't use it as a form of contraceptive. (. http://www.infoplease.com......)Also, removing the right of a woman's choice to her own body is removing civil rights, and is wrong at a human rights level. It is just wrong to say that only specific people may have abortions, obviously. And saying that someone may not do something because it stops something from being alive? Not killing something, fetuses are not alive, they are a clump of cells, but it is just stopping the possibility. There's a slippery slope forming. American Psychology association also found no psychological harm caused by abortion: There is no real side-effects. (. http://www.apa.org......) Also, the chance of death from complications is 1 in 50,000. This is the same as the general use of anaesthesia (. http://journals.lww.com......) or the chance of anyone anywhere on the coast dying from a tsunami (. http://www.livescience.com......). The risk of death associated with childbirth is about ten times higher than that associated with abortion. I think that is enough on the medical and socio-economic factors, but let's move onto the moral factors: Is a group of cells alive? Well, the average human mouth has over 400 species if bacteria, their combined populations total to billions and billions of distinctive organisms, (Stevens J. It's a jungle in there. BioScience, 1996:46:1-5). Do we count these as the same quality of life as human beings? Of course not! I am not saying we should go out of our way to terminate fetuses, but to simply give people the choice. We live in a liberal democracy. Our governments work in a way where the leaders represent their people, and give them what they want. The people want abortion. It is undemocratic to go against this. Let's go through some hypotheticals: What if the woman was raped to pregnancy? What about if the woman gave birth, she would be killing herself, and the child would probably die as well? What if the woman who was pregnant was in poverty? It's quite simple, really, at least, I think so. Socio-economically, abortion is a reasonable option. Morally, restricting someone's choice is terrible. Scientifically, a clump of cells aren't "alive". I await the response, thank you.1 - unlike my opponent, a working source: . http://www.guardian.co.uk...;2 - Ibid.