Abortion should be illegal

With that, I'd first like to get into some discussion of our respective burdens in this round before I launch into my case, which will also include some rebuttal. Now, since my opponent has taken the tack of being for a law (I believe in the U. S. , he can correct me if I'm wrong) banning all abortions. As such, he is taking three major burdens onto himself. 1) Pro must prove that there is a harm to abortions warranting such a law, and 2) Pro must prove that such a law would reduce, not exacerbate, these and other harms. That's a lot to do, I realize, but it comes with the territory. An outright ban on all abortions is a policy with wide-ranging effects that we must consider in evaluating Pro's case. Meanwhile, as I am pro-choice, I would be remiss if I didn't take up that mantle and argue that current policy on abortion in the U. S. should be preserved, though I will state that viability outside the womb is my cutoff for open abortions (so around 22 weeks). There's a good debate over what viability is, but this seems to be the cutoff. [1] So my burden in the round is to defend this stance, and to prove it is better than Pro's stance on abortion for general policy purposes. So let's get the contentions somewhat before I launch into my points. We agree on most of Contention 1, and I grant all the arguments about the unborn being life. And I agree with all that's been said about said about it being human as well. Well, almost all. I'm going to create a distinction between something that is biologically human and a human being. As Warren states, there are five properties that characterize persons: 1. Consciousness, and in particular the capacity to feel pain 2. Reasoning 3. Self-motivated activity 4. The capacity to communicate by whatever means 5. The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness A person need not have all of these, but they much have more than one to be a person. As a fetus has, at most, only the first, it is not a person. Establishing this, the lack of personhood also leads to a lack of the basic right to life that other persons have. [2] I also argue that personhood should be based on "brain birth," or the reversal of the brain death concept. Presence of brain waves would be enough to grant personhood,[3] and specifically, the appearance of these waves in the higher brain are necessary for personhood. [4] This is an important distinction. Accepting Pro's worldview makes in vitro fertilization mass murder since most zygotes created by this method aren't implanted, despite the fact that none of those children would have a chance at life without it. This would also make instances of miscarriage grounds for manslaughter charges at the very least, as each case would have to be considered carefully for how the mother could have contributed to it. I also agree with most of Contention 2, though the First Formulation is essentially just a restatement of the Golden Rule. The Second is just a basic deontological perspective, and it closely links to the Third. However, I could just as easily use these points myself, since these arguments don't distinguish between who is being used as and end and who as a means. Contention 3 is not really well supported. Violation of many different moral obligations can hypothetically lead to the extinction of the human race and many other life forms. With that, I'll get into my case. My case for now will focus to two basic points: 1) Why the mother's health and well-being should be preferred, 2) Why instances of a child's extreme suffering should be prevented 1) So why should the mother's life be preferred? There are multiple simple reasons. The mother is a living, breathing, functional human being, and is virtually guaranteed to experience more of life, whereas the unborn child lacks some of those faculties and has a decent chance of miscarriage and therefore death before experiencing anything. That mother is of child-bearing age and is therefore capable of conceiving and giving birth to other children, whereas the child may never reach that age or may be otherwise impaired from doing so. I'd like to go into this second one a bit more, and this goes back to the concept of life. Pro's definition of life is applicable to the cells from which the child was conceived as well, and though they may not yet carry the traits of human life, they are, nonetheless, still capable of reaching that as an end terminus. Therefore, using Pro's logic, those lives also have meaning. So when conception is denied for whatever reason, that human life is also denied. Therefore, every mother who is made less capable by this ban of conceiving again is also less able (or unable) to engage in the formation of another human life, which is just as bad under Pro's argumentation. 2) Rape victims. Yes, it seems obvious, but this one normally doesn't get the right kind of attention. The big problem here is that these rape victims are, once again, having something forced upon them. They now have, at the very least, a 9-month reminder followed by intense pain of their encounter. And now the state, by banning their only route out, is contributing to their mental anguish. These victims are never going to want to experience pregnancy again when it's associated with this. Many will suffer long term mental trauma, treating their families differently and hurting their qualities of life. [5] 1. But let's also think about the child, because that"s the focus of Pro's arguments here anyway. His argument ignores any number of diseases - genetic, infectious, drug-related or physically induced - that the child could suffer from. It doesn't matter whether they are certain to die within five years (Tay-Sachs),[6] are born with major deformities that often result in death (Edwards Syndrome),[7] are doomed to terrible neurological conditions (Huntington's),[8], lacking essential immune activities (Alymphocytosis),[9] or are simply set to live a life of constant pain (Sickle-cell anemia);[10] these issues are all detectable early in the pregnancy, and yet in Pro's world, they are secondary to their survival till birth. This ignores the psychological trauma of watching the child suffer and/or die, its effect on other family members, and on possible future kids. And let's not forget my points from the start of this round. What effects does a law like this have? Back alley abortions are the most commonly cited issue. It's pretty simple: provide no legal avenue for abortion and people will pursue an illegal one. It's already happening in some states that massively limit them. [11] Injuries and even death can result, as they have in the past. [12] Much as we would all like to think that people treasure their little bundles of joy, if they view the birth as being forced upon them, many will feel resentment that can be reflected in how they treat their child, leading to child abuse. [13] Of course, that's if they keep them. If they don't, they'll be adding kids to an already overtaxed adoption system,[14] which will make it more difficult for kids to find homes and reduce the quality of life the orphanage and foster systems can provide. Lastly, I think classism must be discussed. This type of ban is ineffective against the rich because they can always travel to another country and get the abortion. And even if they have to get it here, they don't suffer from the financial strains of going to the hospital and having the child, and certainly suffer less from childcare costs. The poor aren't so lucky. Most won't be able to leave the country. The thousands of dollars that it costs for the hospital stay are more likely to break the bank, and if that doesn't, the costs of childcare will. [15] So even if Pro's winning on harms, the negative effects of the ban outweigh its benefits. 1. . http://www.slate.com... 2. . http://www.amber-hinds.com... 3. . http://jme.bmj.com... 4. . http://www.cirp.org... 5. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 9. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 10. . http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... 11. . http://www.policymic.com... 12. . http://www.prochoice.org... 13. . http://ecademy.agnesscott.edu... 14. . http://www.childrensrights.org... 15. . http://www.parents.com...