Question:
Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy

Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.

In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".

1 SECASA

Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion.

1 L.B Finner et al

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
There are practical problems with banning abortion

Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1

Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions.

1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy

There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus.

Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1

1 PRO-Life Information

What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior

Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. In Mexico City, a year after abortion was legalized, the frequency increased.1

1 LIFESITE NEWS

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
A fetus is a life from conception, therefore abortion is murder

It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries.1 Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." in the 1980 presidential debate.2

1 THE TELEGRAPH

Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Most abortions are performed out of convenience

Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1

1 L.B Finner et al

Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation

Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves.

Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they:

a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late

b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Going back on this rule would promote casual sex

Condoning the use of barrier methods of contraception would be implicitly condoning casual sex since their primary function is within that context. This is particularly important since the Catholic Church's teachings on casual sex are not taken particularly seriously already. Any action, such as the Catholic Church allowing the use of barrier contraception, that would promote casual sex in countries with severe AIDS/HIV problems, would be an incredibly irresponsible one. Pope Paul VI argued that when considering "the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." The Church's current stance on barrier contraception, therefore, is the most responsible one1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.

More casual sex with barrier contraception is preferable to the current amount without contraception. The amount of consensual sex is not going to change no matter what the church teaches. As long as the use of barrier contraception was promoted along with this promotion of casual sex, it would be a huge net reduction in the cases of contraction of HIV. Therefore, condoning the use of barrier contraception would be the more responsible stand to take on the part of the Catholic Church.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Protects people from spending eternity in Hell.

It is important to remember that the Catholic Church believe that barrier contraception is against God and that using it will condemn people to Hell. Therefore, even if the Church's stance on condoms is harmful, which the proposition does not accept that it is, it is less harmful than people spending an eternity suffering. In this context, therefore, the most responsible thing for the Catholic Church to do is to forbid the use of condoms and, thereby, save people from Hell1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.

This is a wilful interpretation of a highly ambiguous passage. The Church's belief that barrier contraception is against God is based entirely on a single passage of the Bible where Onan is condemned for wilfully 'spilling his seed.'1Importantly, the fact that he spilled his seed alone was not even the main reason that he was condemned. It is well within the power of the Catholic Church to officially change their belief that using barrier contraception will send people to Hell and allow its use. Since the passage is ambiguous, the decision should be made based on what is best for society and the Church as a whole. The opposition believes that in their main case they have proved that the Church lifting their ban on barrier methods of contraception would be better for society and therefore they believe they have won the debate. 138:9-10, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
In context of other teachings, does not promote the spread of AIDS/HIV.

The Catholic Church does not only forbid the use of barrier contraception but also of casual sex. The issue is not that the Church is being irresponsible by banning the use of barrier contraception but that people are choosing to follow some of the Church's teachings but not others. Pope Benedict XVI argues AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"1. If people followed the Church's teachings on casual sex as well as their teachings on barrier contraception, the AIDS epidemic would be dramatically decreased. Given, therefore, that it also forbids any sex outside of marriage, the Catholic Church is totally justified in forbidding barrier methods of contraception2. 1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. "The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift." The Telegraph, 20 November 2010, 2 Pope John Paul II. "Evangelium Vitae." 1995.

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church.

Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. "Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history." Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010

The Catholic Church already has huge numbers of people leaving, this could help stop that. The Catholic Church is already becoming increasingly unpopular because of its refusal to compromise on any issue and its inability to adapt and change to keep up with an ever changing world. Rather than damage the stability of the Church, allowing barrier contraception would show that the Church is capable of change when change is necessary. Importantly, when the Church of England allowed women to become bishops, it caused some tension at the time but had no long term negative impact on the stability of the Church.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The Catholic Church believes that any limitation of procreation is against God.

Catholics consider the first commandment given to them by God to be to 'multiply'1. In light of this, anything that limits procreation, be it the use of contraception or even condoning the use of contraception, is against God. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church's primary obligation is not to its people but to God. The Church is, therefore, justified in any action where the alternative is going against what they believe to be the wishes of God, even if it is harmful to the people of the Church. 11:28, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.

The commandment given is to 'go forth and multiply', not to multiply as much as possible with no thought for sustainability. Contraception can help monogamous couples control the amount of children they have and when so that they can ensure they don't have more children than they can sustainably provide for. The idea that any limitation of procreation is against God is a single interpretation of a very ambiguous passage. The Catholic Church has the freedom to choose the interpretation that is best for humanity.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Birth control within monogamous relationships.

Contraception is not just used in casual sex but within monogamous couples who want to control when they have children. The reason for this could be so they ensure that they don’t have more children than they can afford to reasonably look after.

Contraception can help monogamous couples to give more to the children they do decide to have and to the community, since less of their time and money will be used in maintaining a family which is larger than they can reasonably afford to control. The current cost of raising a child in Britain is calculated to be over £210,000, a very substantial sum that any responsible parent must think about before having more children 1.

Since, in this case, contraception promotes a good in the community, as well as more responsible reproduction, the Catholic Church is unjustified in its blanket ban over barrier contraception.

1. Insley 2011

The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
In contradiction to the Catholic Church's responsibility to promote life.

Many Catholic countries in Africa and South America have huge problems with AIDS and HIV with thousands of people dying as a result. In a survey carried out in 20091, it was found that in sub-Saharan Africa 22.5 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and 1.3 million people died of AIDS. An enormous number of these people contracted HIV because they did not use a condom during intercourse, under the advice of the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that the Catholic Church's stance on barrier contraception promotes the spread of AIDS. The opposition also believes that since the Catholic Church are in a position of power over a colossal number of people, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of those people. They must, therefore, reduce the likelihood that the people that they have power over will die as much as they can. Their ban over the use of barrier contraception is not in line with this responsibility. 1 UNAIDS global report.

The Catholic Church also forbids sex outside of marriage. The opposition has tried to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church actually does not allow sex outside of marriage either. It is not a case of the Church saying it is acceptable to have casual sex as long as contraception is not used but saying that neither is acceptable. If abstinence were practised, there would be no HIV epidemic. Since the Church preaches abstinence outside of marriage it cannot be held accountable for the HIV epidemic.

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.

1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc. http://criminologyresearch.org/index.php?page=serial-killers-defining-se...

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.

[1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.

[2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .

[1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?

Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.

Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.

While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.

Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.

As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim