Abortion should be illegal.

This round was written by Tejretics, approved/advised by Solon and Uniferous; delegations for future rounds will differ. Burdens:The topic is normative, so the burdens are equal. Pro's burden is to show that abortion should be illegal, while ours is to show that abortion should be legal. The word "should" implies net benefits, so we will be discussing the net benefits and harms of our cases. Framework:We agree on a framework of utilitarianism - the role of the state is to maximize benefit and minimize harm to the people. The power of a government to exercise control over an individual can only be applied in order to prevent harm or maximize benefit to society, or to acknowledge a value of society - without such reason the government lacks legitimacy itself, since the state of nature is one where people are free to do whatever they want. Infringing on this state of nature serves a purpose: to prevent harm to non-consensual others. Pro might talk about how harm can be done to an individual by the same individual, but individual choices ought not be restricted because measures of utility when it comes to choices that an individual makes that doesn't harm anyone else are inherently subjective, so the individual themselves are the best ones to perform cost-benefit analysis. Thus, we offer the following criterion: the only purpose for which power can be exercised over an unwilling person is to maximize benefit or minimize/prevent harm to non-consensual others.Abortion doesn't harm anyone significantly, so, per the framework given above, women should have the liberty of abortions. 1. Harm to the fetus The fetus cannot feel/perceive subjectively. A "harm" is defined as "physical or mental damage or injury." (Merriam-Webster) Under utilitarianism, pleasure and/or pain are requirements for moral consideration. Lacking perception, they can't feel such injury/damage. Pro says fetuses have neurological development at week 5, so can feel pleasure/pain then. First, in that case, abortion can be legal for the first four weeks - that itself negates Pro's case to this extent. Second, fetuses don't feel pleasure/pain just because of initial neurological development. There's more than basic nervous systems to experiencing pain. Pro's source #2 doesn't talk about pain/pleasure, only on neurological development. The vast majority of research agrees that fetuses begin to experience such basic emotions only sometime between 24 and 37 weeks. [1] The lowest estimate of all is 20 weeks, which itself has been refuted. [2]2. Psychological damagePro's argument that abortions cause psychological damage fails for two reasons. One, from the harm principle, we can see that even the psychological damage caused is to the individual that chooses to have an abortion, so it remains a self-regarding act. The government shouldn't legislate to prevent purely self-regarding acts. Two, this claim is nonsense anyway. If a woman is denied a safe abortion, research suggests that she might face psychological harms (e.g. anxiety or depression). Rocca and Kimport, et al. explain that "[c]ompared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger . . . and less relief and happiness." [3] 3. Hippocratic OathPro doesn't prove that the Hippocratic Oath ought to be followed as it is, and that it shouldn't be modified at all. 4. Back-alley abortionsPro's arguments assume that banning abortion will reduce the amount of abortions - because otherwise two of the key arguments fail. This assumption is wrong. Dr. Paul Van Look of the World Health Organization led a study that suggested that "abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it." [4] Women are going to have abortions anyway. So whatever right to life the fetus has isn't going to be respected at all. But there's a problem as to *why* that is the case: back-alley abortions. Back-alley abortions are abortions taken place in unsafe, illegal and non-medical conditions. When abortion is illegal, it's very tough to afford appropriate medical conditions and regulations expected in hospitals. So women go to places with poor medical facilities to get abortions, or attempt to self-abort. Such unsafe abortions lead to around 68,000 deaths annually (mostly in countries where abortion is illegal), along with *millions* of painful injuries. [5] The harm is huge. Banning abortion would have a significant impact on deaths.5. RapeThe resolution requires Pro to defend an abortion ban in cases of rape- since when a person is raped being denied an abortion doesn't cause death or serious physical harm. In cases of rape, the mother is deprived of the choice to possess a fetus - which means they are forced to experience pain for nine months and then intense pain during delivery under Pro's case. Apply Thompson's violinist analogy. The analogy is as follows: you wake up one morning and find yourself back in bed with an unconscious violinist who has been found to have a usually-fatal kidney ailment- a certain society the violinist is part of has forcibly strapped you to the violinist for nine months, which causes you frequent intense pain. You remove the strap, the violinist dies. [6] The purpose of this analogy is to elicit the intuition that it's morally permissible to remove the strap in this scenario - because of the suffering you're going through without consent, and have already undergone suffering through the rape.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...