The USFG Should Ban Abortion.

Premise I: Human Rights.Con has accepted this Premise through silence, and rightly so, since it was part of accepting the debate.Premise II: Limitation of Rights.Con has accepted the limitation of rights as described here with his framework."If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily"I should also mention that this is merely Con's belief system, and not the system the voter's must use. I, for example, am arguing from a general point-of-view to apply to any belief system. The only belief that my case, and Con's case, agrees on is that rights end where other, more important rights, begin.Rebuttal I: Living Human.Con has conceded to the use of the Characteristics of Life in determining if the fetus is living. He listed off several Characteristics, but fell short of the embryological information available on the subject. Embryology disagrees with his many claims. Taking the Characteristics he claimed the fetus can not do, I can fill in the blanks.-- Respiration - The fetus needn't breath by itself. Many humans can't breath unless you are making them. For example, some people require air be forcibly pumped into their lungs. A fetus, by age 2 weeks, receives oxygen from the placenta (which is apart of the fetus) [1].-- Sensitivity - This is not a characteristic of life... Many people are born unable to feel pain. There is a Characteristic regarding responding to stimuli, which the Zygote does. It responds to stimuli telling it to travel the Fallopian Tubes, and then to stimuli telling it to grow the placenta.-- Reproduction - Neither can a two week old baby, and for the same reasons.-- Excretion - The fetus excretes through the placenta as soon as age 2 weeks [2].-- Nutrition - The fetus takes in nutrients through the placenta [3].Con's mistake is his faulty believe in independence as the primary source of fulfilling these criteria... It's not. A comatose patient proves this immediately. So does anyone on an iron lung.I have shown in my R2 each and every characteristic, pre-rebutting this entire case.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal II: Mother/Teen Health.Sub-argument I: Mother's Health.Illegal Abortions in third world countries, making up the 13% death toll stat, is not like illegal abortions in the US. In fact, pre-Roe v Wade, less than 40 people died from illegal abortions in 1972 [4]. In the US, more than 90% of illegal abortions were done by medical professionals with respectable standing in their field [5]. The "backally abortion" Con throws around is a myth.Illegal abortions in the US pre-Roe v Wade years were incredibly safe, with casualties declining every year. With modern medicine and practices, the causalities would be even smaller. Another error in Con's case is that those nations that have illegal abortions, have A LOT of them because of poor law enforcement, nation-wide poverty, and regimes who don't care about the abortion laws. The US has a much better law-enforcement system, and a lot less poverty.So illegal abortions wouldn't be a problem... More importantly, however, is that Con's case is a fallacy. It presumes that the consequence of breaking the law is relevant in whether it should be law. More importantly, it presume abortion isn't the termination of a living human...Since my Argument I and II holds up against his own case, it can be established that abortion is the termination of life. Therefore, even if 100,000 women die from illegal abortions, it would be less than 10% of the 1.06 million abortions done annually [6]. At 39 deaths (last known estimate), deaths from illegal abortions equal 0.000037% of the current death toll from abortion.In fact, looking over the data, before Roe v Wade, legal abortions were only seen in 20% of the US, but legal abortions made up nearly 40% of all deaths... Looking at a study by J. Wilke (2000), Poland banned abortions in almost all circumstances, and lyet abortions decreased greatly, and there were no deaths from illegal abortions reported [7].In fact, abortion often harms the mother, increasing their odds of mental issues by over 80% that of normal women, found a study by Coleman (2011)[8].[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] Mary Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Health 50 (July I960): 949.[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] J. C. Willke, “Clear Evidence: If Forbidden, Abortion Will Not Return to the Back Alley,” Life Issues Connector, Life Issues Institute, April, 2000,1,3.[8] http://tinyurl.com...Sub-argument II: Teen Health.Con's case is more of a call for social reform... Either way, Con's stats on cost are misleading. Childcare may, from age 0 - 18, cost $245,000, but that's not evenly distributed... The earlier years cost less. The teenager often receives parental aide during the cheaper, earlier years of the infants life. Con's case also ignores government aide. The EITC alone pays up to $3,000+ a year, or $55,000+ over the course of 18 years [8].Although Con's numbers are wrong. The study by the Department of Agriculture included nearly $75,000 in "housing" costs, and another $40,000 in food. For a 16 year old, for example, these would be excluded for a likely 4-6 years. The cost also ignores generic shopping and cost-saving methods, such as getting the $2 cereal over the $5 cereal, and buying cloths from yard sales. This alone cuts the real cost down a lot.Con even tries misleading the reader by comparing $250,000 to the average household income of $51,000 a year... An accurate picture is $915,000 v $250,000.More importantly, however, is that teenage Mothers can adopt away the child to families who can care for them. Most importantly is the fact that the right to financial/mental security is not more important than one's right to life. By that argument, a women could "abort" her child post-birth if financial troubles arise because of him. [8] http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal III: Women's Rights.This case is an opinion piece, built up by the opinion of two people... Con never quotes one constitutional case or legal document backing him up.Premise 1 in his case is wrong... It presumes removing Abortion is gender inequality, but how? Men don't have the right to an Abortion, nor do the unborn have a say. Con's case in no way draws on what Gender Equality is. Unless men can have abortions, or a say in an abortion, Con's merely tries to scare people. In truth, Gender Inequality is NOT refusing a gender their rights... But refusing them a right the other gender still has... This is a fear tactic.Gender Inequality:Social process by which people are treated differently and disadvantageously, under similar circumstances, on the basis of gender. [9]Equally so, Con's own case is made in ignorance of the very framework he laid out. In his framework, rights can be restricted when another, more important right, is infringed upon. Suddenly he tries to say that a right can be restricted unless it's a women's right being restricted, because then it's Gender Inequality.[9] http://tinyurl.com...;(Oxford)Rebuttal IV: Rape and Incest.This case is made on a number of faulty assumptions. The first assumption is that the rape victims right to mental happiness is greater than the right to life. If the unborn is, in fact, a living human, then the rights of a rape victim to future happiness do not exceed the fetus's own right to life and future happiness. The second assumption is that abortion helps the rape victim. Abortion doesn't solve the problem at the heart of the Mother's issues, nor is there any wieght to the claim that the baby poses "unwanted memories". As shown in Rebuttal II, abortion can even pose serious threats to a women's mental health, especially when added to the issues of rape.Con says 1 life is no greater than 100... This is NOT the belief of a libertarian, nor does a person believing in individualism believe this. Put a libertarian in the following position: He must let 1 person die, or 100. He will pick the 1 person to die. Con's mistake is looking at the Collective from the Collectivist's point-of-view. Only Collectivism believes the worth of an individual relates to the collective. He says a "collective of 1,000,000" people is equal to 1 mother, but ignores that it's "1,000,000 individuals" compared to 1 mother, as opposed to 1 collective... The worth of an individual in a group of 100 people is not 1% that of an individual outside the group.Con also wrongly groups up people by a concept, and not a common goal (all aborted fetuses, for example, are grouped only by the fact that they are all aborted fetuses, as opposed to being grouped by their own intention and common goal [which is what an actual Collective is]). Con can not group together random people, and deem their individual value lower because of it. The fetus is not a part of a collective of fetuses... It's an individual unborn, unique from the others.More so, Con measures only in deaths. Letting 1,000,000+ unborn die to save the life of 14,000 women is wrong, but letting them die to save only the happiness of the women is far different, and far worse. Returning on topic, the fetus, being alive, has the right to life. Mental sercurity and happiness is not more important than the right to life.Summary:The right to life of the Fetus is more important than the right to Bodily Autonomy, Happiness, and Financial Security. Since the fetus is a living human, the Resolution is affirmed through both Pro and Con's own frameworks.For this round, my cases from R2 stands, as Con focused only on his arguments. As such, my case pre-rebuttals his own.