Countries Undergoing Demographic Transition Should Ban Abortion

The future of NationsMy opponent states correctly that if nothing is done. However, the event of nothing being done means that no changes in the judiciary, executive or legislature happens. The argument assumes there is no change to spending. If my opponent wants to believe that no change in spending has happened since the publishing of his source in 2009, I'd have to point out how UK[1] or American[2] spending has changed. State-run childcareMy opponent cites incorrectly. The source shows how Sweden gives pay leave for mothers. This is completely different to what my opponent is stating. My opponent is specifically taking children away, and giving them to the state, who will be forced to look after said children. The actual current cost in, say, Sweden, is very high, though. As per my opponents soruce, they have had to "cut parent-leave support...moving children from child care to school a week earlier, and raising the ratio of children to child care workers". The economic cost for Swden is still too much, even at the very tiny level it is there. Yet my opponent's proposal will make things many times worse.Abortion ban harms citizensI provided two citations. The fact that my opponent ignores them is not in any way my blame.Forced Culling is not euthanasiaMy opponent seems to claim that the Groningen Protocol is similar to forced culling of the elderly. I wish to reiterate that euthanasia is to relieve that person's suffering and pain. My opponent is doing it as it is economically desirable. It is not similar to the Groningen proposal. The Groningen protocol is for children, not the elderly. The Groningen protocol requires the consent of the family. My opponent is forcing it on people, whether they want it or not. The rest of the argument is from chanceless, random, hopeless events taking place. The hypothetical countries he poses, I will say again, won't exist in the future, nor is there any reason to believe they will exist. Furthermore, I will say again, have no impact on countries currently undergoing demographic transitions.Data on Demographic transition still doesn't existMy opponent is proposing a country will reach a higher level of debt. Firstly, this is only if current trends continue, which requires a neverending recession and all governments to be incapable. This is such an extraordinary requirement that it can be dismissed out of hand. Further, economic catastrophe leading to abortion ending still makes no sense: it is linking Indian musicals to French interest rates. Claiming a single event in history being caused by hyperinflation is simply correlation making causation: my opponent could only make this new argument using one citation.Abortion bans still don't stop abortionI'll keep this short: this entire point is speculation. No evidence whatsoever. In South America, many punishments include over a dozen years in prison, to life in prison[3]. Abortion rates didn't change[3]. The reset of the speech is reasons why abortion rates may be less. for example, the busting of doctors or the dangers. However, this is true in real countries, not just the made up ones my opponent brings up, and the rates have not changed. The final point about education essentially is forcing a propagandised idea onto people, and expecting people to accept the horrible idea my opponent puts forth. I think we can rule out the idea of a totalitarian state, seeing as, again, they do not exist.Liberal democracyAll of this point holds no criticism to my argument. He states examples of countries that are classified as liberal democracies but ban abortion: then they are not being liberal democracies. ConclusionMy opponent, in order to be convincing, has attempted impossible things one after the other. His argument requires the existence of a totalitarian regime, a fictional country, ignoring all cases of countries undergoing demographic transitions, imposing a cull of the elderly, breaking almost every human rights convention and civil law, and, at its most basic, the entire world changing beyond recognition. The motion itself is about countries undergoing demographic transition. As evidence, he states countries which do not exist. The cases rest on misconstruing evidence. In short, it requires warping reality to such a degree that it is unrecognisable. He does not fulfil his burden of proof by showing that all - or even any existent country - that is undergoing demographic transition should ban abortion. For this, I urge a vote CON.1 - http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net...2 - http://media.economist.com...3 - http://blog.amnestyusa.org...