Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The debate over abortion's legality often revolves around the issue of personhood and fetal viability. While exceptions exist for rare circumstances such as rape or endangerment of the mother's life, abortion on demand is not justifiable when the fetus is considered human. The question of when a fetus becomes human is central to the debate, as arguments for abortion based on privacy, choice, and bodily autonomy do not justify harming another person. Public polling shows that the majority of Americans, over 75%, disagree with abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and recognize that abortion beyond this point is clearly murder. Only 36% believe abortion is justifiable when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child. There is overwhelming recognition that abortion should be legal in rare cases such as rape or life of the mother. However, the majority of abortions are not performed in these circumstances.

The issue of abortion should be decided by the elected representatives of the people, not by appointed judges. The correct way forward is to put this issue to a vote and let the American people determine by ballot referendum what the correct viability limit on abortion should be and in what circumstances it is allowed. It is likely that they will agree with the consensus that abortion should be restricted to roughly the 12th week of pregnancy and allowed in cases such as rape and life of the mother.

A controversial point of disagreement is whether abortion should be allowed simply because Down's Syndrome or other illnesses are evident in a pregnant child. It is argued that we should err on the side of caution when potentially taking another human life, and that human life is precious. Asking unborn children whether they would like to be born is not possible, but it is questionable whether we should infer that they do not wish to be born because of a disability. This reasoning sets a dangerous precedent that devalues those with disabilities, whether born or unborn, and allows us to set an arbitrary definition of who is worthy of being born. Adoption is often urged as a preferable alternative to abortion in such cases.

There are many hypothetical situations that go along with why abortion shouldn't be allowed. However, from a realistic standpoint, an attempt to restrict the abortions would rise not only the percentage of illegal and unsafe abortions but also the expenses of the procedure. A new law would be needed to tackle the illegal abortions and further legal hassles would have no ends. All in all, if you stop abortion, it will cause more problems than what people have started already today.

Abortion should be illegal because it kills a life. How do we know if something is alive? We can tell because it's breathing, so it's functioning. True you could say a plant is functions, but a fetus has the possibility of growing up into a child or a adult. It could have a job, wife, and kids. Your still ending a life. A fetus is just a human being in it's first organic stage, think about it this way if your mother had a abortion when you were still in her stomach you wouldn't be here typing or looking at this screen. You would be dead, so having a abortion would just kill possibility for a human being. The harm could be to the rape victim, but that is why we have therapist. A life shouldn't end because one person doesn't want to have a baby.

The woman is going to be the one who has to go through labor and take care of the child. So obviously the woman should be the one to make the final call in whether they have an abortion or not.

In the majority of the western world abortion is considered a suitable operation for women who are not able or do not want to bear children. In these countries many people agree with abortion, and, as you can see in the opinion polls of this website more than half of the users also approve of abortion. I am here to argue for the subject of abortion because I also believe that it is a suitable method for unfortunate women who do not and do not deserve want a pregnancy.

Abortion is murder and it should be illegal. There is no excuse for an abortion there are many alternatives too them, one example would be adoption. I would say that the ONLY reason why there should to be an abortion is in case the baby is acting as a cancer and its killing the mother, but that should be the last resort. I will await for my opponents arguments

Abortion has been one of the main and major contentious issues of our times especially by most public leaders in both Religion and Politicians. To get elected in public office here in the USA, just support the movements that are against abortion who are the biggest spenders and those that hang on to your morality and you are sure to get judged or elected. I know it is legal but on the other hand why do they make all and I mean all aspects of abortion so secret.? If it is legal, then why not publish all its statutes or be open with them. Is it not all about Morals and Principals which are wholly governed by our cultures and traditions? Informed consent and abortion limit terms are just but a few that are contradicting and not practiced statutes in abortion. This link will give you an idea of why abortion should be made illegal, especially when you think of it as your child being the one who is undergoing that process. http://www.lifenews.com... I still think Abortion should be made illegal and that way we can have free access to the information and procedures for relevant prosecution of the perpetrators because when its illegal, then everything about it becomes public.

! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !! !!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!! Definitions/Explanations Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.

I will argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views. Contention 1: Life is not sacred Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception Contention 3: A fetus is not a person I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!

1.There are a number of reasons why abortion, at various points along the gestation timeline, should and can not be considered murder: 2.Ample medical evidence has shown that fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with respirators, prior to 21 weeks3.Even more medical evidence has shown that a fetus cannot feel anything like pain because they do not yet have the brain connections to do so prior to at least 24 weeks4.Many pro-life advocates allege that every fertilized egg is a human, despite the fact that most of them do not actually make it to birth “There has been no concerted anti-abortion effort to demand research funding into why all of these fertilized eggs die, or to find a cure. Perhaps that’s because even the most active anti-abortion advocates know the truth is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a three-year-old, and they do not genuinely believe that it has the same right to life.” - Jill Filipovic, lawyer and author of The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness 5.Often times, abortions are almost the antithesis of murder in that a being whose life and conscious status is debatable is being sacrificed for the livelihood and survival of the mother"A fetus poses a risk to a woman, purely because she has to use her body to incubate it. And in America, she has to do so in a country with the worst rate of maternal deaths in the developed world."6.If a person is not allowed to live inside one's house without their consent, why should a person (if we are calling fetuses persons) be allowed to live inside one's body without their consent. Here are some topical quotes stated by people ranging from politicians to comedians to scientists: “No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body.” - Margret Sanger “How come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelette?” - George Carlin “I cannot understand anti-abortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species we've fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don't believe in the sanctity of life. The shrugging acceptance of war, famine, epidemic, pain and life-long poverty shows us that, whatever we tell ourselves, we've made only the most feeble of efforts to really treat human life as sacred.” - Caitlin Moran "No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg." - Frederica Mathewes-Green “If you are against abortions, don't have one.” - Scott Andrews Excited to hear your thoughts!

Because my opponent has the burden of proof, I only need to rebut his arguments. I don’t need to present any arguments of my own. However, I would like to make a few general comments before I discuss his argument specifically. Abortion is not some glorious freedom for women or even for feminists. Abortion is awful, invasive and sometimes traumatic. Women who do not want to get pregnant should not be getting pregnant. The fact that they are, in such large numbers, is a sad indication of the power balance in sexual relationships. Germaine Greer says it best: “If we accept every abortion as the outcome of unwanted and easily avoided pregnancy, we have to ask ourselves how it is that women are still exposing themselves to this risk. A woman who is unable to protect her cervix from exposure to male hyperfertility, who cannot suggest another way of making love or ask for a condom to be used, is certainly not calling the shots… Because he ejaculates when and where he ejaculates, she conceives against her will…The crowning insult is that this ordeal [abortion] is represented to her as some kind of privilege. Her sad and onerous duty is garbed in the rhetoric of a civil right. ” [1] There is nothing desirable about abortion. However, what my opponent suggests – that women should be prevented from having abortions – is even more horrible. It’s allowing women no more power over their bodies than domestic animals have. The resolution is that men should have no say in women’s abortion decisions. Absolutely correct. It can be extended, though, that women shouldn’t have a say in any abortion decision other than their own. Each woman should have the sole power to make decisions about her own body. And now to my opponent’s argument, which he presented in four parts. P1) The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. Yes. This seems reasonable. I’ve never had much liking for the “just a mass of cells” argument. However, until about 6 months’ gestation, these “humans” are unable to live independently. They are parasites on the host mother. Also, for pragmatic reasons, they are not defined as human beings in a legal sense. It’s using emotive language to say that an abortion is murder of the unborn. Another way to see it is as separating the foetus from the mother. She is denying it access to her body. Of course, the result is that it dies. But the difference is important. Women should have sovereignty over their own bodies. They shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice themselves physically to support other people. P2) Killing human beings is immoral. Yes, usually. But we allow exceptions to the rule in our society. For example, killing in self-defense. Also, failure to intervene (in the absence of duty of care) to save lives is never punished. Even when the intervention required is negligible, say, just calling 9-1-1 or fetching someone’s medicine from their handbag, there is no law requiring people to do it (except in Vermont and Minnesota where there may be a small fine). [2] Of course, this doesn’t mean that failure to intervene isn’t immoral. Indeed, how could you ever think well of someone who stood with their mobile in their hand and watched someone die when they could have made the call to save them? But we recognize that much of morality is private. That people make moral and immoral decisions and that they cannot all be (and should not all be) subject to external control. Abortion, obviously, is one of these private decisions. P3) Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). This is such an ambiguous statement, because immorality is subjective and “stand against” could mean anything at all. For example, in Bangladesh, it’s considered immoral for a woman to travel alone, to shake hands with strange men and to walk about in public with bare shoulders. Of course, there will be some among the 150 million Bangladeshis who don’t think this way. However, there will also be several million Bangladeshi men who feel very strongly about these things and who feel moved to “stand against” any immorality they come across. Can they? Should they? And to what extent? Would it be OK for them to take a stick and whack any offending woman? How about imposing a law to forbid women from leaving the house without a male relative? How about some kind of ritual humiliation for offending women so that everyone can watch and learn? No, no, and no. So, on the whole, I disagree with my opponent’s statement. He’ll need to be more specific. C) Therefore, men can take a stand against abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). Con said: “If men have no say in the issue, then…[w]e would have to overturn Roe v. Wade, in fact, because it was voted on by nine men. ” I think my opponent is making a little joke here. Until relatively recently, all legislation was written by men and all court decisions were made by men. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that I support overturning all these decisions. However, if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Christianity, which has been very male dominated. And we would end up where we started, which is with nothing to prevent women from making decisions to abort or not to abort for themselves. It really is a woman’s own decision, and I’m glad my opponent has failed to prove otherwise. [1] Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Transworld Publishers Ltd, 1999. p. 89. [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should not be universally legal, except in cases where it is medically necessary to save the mother's life. My argument is structured as follows:

1. Abortion is the intentional termination of a human fetus.
2. A human fetus is a living human being.
3. It is morally unjustifiable to end the life of a human being.
4. Only morally justified actions should be legal.

Given these premises, the conclusion follows: Abortion should not be legal.

Premise 1: Abortion, as defined, involves the intentional termination of a human fetus, which necessarily results in the death of the fetus.

Premise 2: A fetus is alive, as it undergoes growth and change, and has the capacity for reproduction given the opportunity to develop naturally. Therefore, a human fetus is alive. All life is categorized into species, and as a human fetus is alive, it belongs to the species Homo sapiens, making it human.

Premise 3: The moral argument against the removal of a human being's life is supported by various ethical theories. Rule Utilitarianism suggests that a rule against killing will result in greater happiness. Deontology asserts that killing is wrong because it cannot be universalized. An Evolutionary perspective notes that permitting killing is evolutionarily disastrous.

Premise 4: Only morally justified actions should be legal. Rule Utilitarianism, Deontology, and an Evolutionary perspective all support this premise.

Thus, as the premises are valid, the conclusion logically follows: Abortion should not be legal.

Additionally, the argument from consistency states that to hold a rational moral stance, one must treat others as they would consent to be treated if in the same situation. If one believes abortion is morally justified, they are being inconsistent, as they would not consent to being killed if they were a fetus.

In response to the argument that abortion is about women's rights to choose, it is important to consider that the government has the right to legislate against choices that harm another human being. Adoption is an alternative to abortion, preventing the false dichotomy of abortion versus raising a child.

The claim that a fetus is not legally or scientifically a person is refuted by the definition of life and the fact that a fetus undergoes development. The assertion that prohibiting abortions does not stop them is true, but legalizing abortion significantly increases the number of abortions performed. The safety argument for legal abortion is akin to legalizing burglary to make it safer for burglars, which is not a valid justification.

In summary, abortion should not

Abortion is not immoral and it should be legal.

RebuttalLateterm-abortion should not be legal since their are better alternatives that don't waste life, such as adoption, abstinence, birth control, condoms, the day after pill, and many other controceptives. When there is this many ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place and when there is this many alternatives to killing, why should killing another living breathing unborn baby be a choice?There are many other controceptives to choose from, and are cheap. However, in the case that contoceptives do not work, the mother does not have to keep the baby as long as 22 weeks when it can feel, when it can think, when the only thing that is seperating it from being considered a full person is it's location. If a mother did not want the baby she would have used better crotroceptives such as Praneem [1], which is way more effective then the average birth control pills and condoms, and all these can be used at once to effectivelly prevent pregnancy. Like I have already stated, since the woman was given so many alternatives and also kept the baby for 22 weeks. The women should think about that before having unprotected sex. Every action that we all make have consequences, and pregnancy is the consequence for unprotected sex. The fetus should not be the one that pays the price for his so-called mother's mistake.It is not my moral values that decide on whether a baby has the right to life or not, it is the government's. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two murders the woman's life and the baby's life. [2] If the baby has no right to life then why is there punishments against killing them? Because the baby does have rights. Therefore, if it is against the law to kill the unborn and not be the mother, then it should be illegal for the mother to do this also.Defense1) There is two things wrong with this. The first is that we live in a democracy, so if the majority of people do not like late-term abortion (which they agree with me), then it should stay illegal. Also, How does the fact that the mother practically invites the baby into her womb, and then waiting 22 weeks in which she is fully pregnant, then knowing that she could very easily put the baby up for adoption but would rather kill it justify giving a women to have her baby's brains sucked out? It doesn't, women already have plenty of choices, that will allow her and the baby to live their lives to the fullest.2) In the case that this is true and her family wont accept her, this does not make late-term abortion just. the damage would have already been done, and going through with the pregnancy and puting the baby up for adoption would be a better solution then killing the baby and still having a family that wont accept her. The fact is that it is hurting the baby, therefore shouldn't be legal.3) This statement is by your own opinion.The state is our governemnent. They make laws that protect us and society, this includes protection from ourselves. It is possible if members of society would stop killing eachother, this can be applied to late-term abortion since obviously the baby is being killed. Therefore, a great way to stop the corosion of our society is to make late-term abortion stay illegal.This is not logical to compare a underdeveloped unborn baby, who did not choose to be in the woman's body, to a grown person who is capable of rashional thought who chooses to break into someone elses home.The fetus will grow up and perform a task that society requires of it. The woman would be performing one of her tasks to society by baring children. Also, keeping late term abortion illegal is preserving the rights of the fetus.Final ConclusionLate-term abortion does not benefit society at all, but takes away valuable future people to carry on society. It is also has a very barbaric procedure in which it is carried out, and women have plenty of rights and alternatives late-term abortion should remain illegal.Vote con![1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2]http://civilliberty.about.com...

It is my belief that it is a mothers natural inherited right to choose rather or not to terminate a pregnancy.

Abortion should be illegal. Rules: Forfeit, you lose. No trolling, spamming, etc. Now I shall argue. I will only give one argument now so I can save stuff for later. 1. If the woman does not want a baby, she should not have gotten pregnant, so it is her fault she wants abortion. It is not her right to kill the baby because she decided to get pregnant herself. Now I will wait for someone to accept.

I believe that if a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion. My 1st point is that she didn't want this baby! She forcefully got into this mess.Its not her fault.Getting raped must be very horrible and a terrible experience.Its a woman's night mare.And if she gets pregnant and gives birth and its to late to have an abortion because she had no choice but to keep it,then she will have to live with something she never wanted. My 2nd point is that there have been cases of woman getting raped having a baby and then killing it because they couldn't have an abortion.Then the mother either gets home detention or goes to jail herself.This is NOT fair because shes probably really depressed knowing that the father is this sick man.One woman even said that the reason she killed her baby was because 1.She got raped and she didn't want it. 2.She wasn't aloud to have an abortion 3.The baby looked like her rapist and she just had to kill it. So a woman should have the decision/right to have an abortion if she gets raped.

While I do not believe abortion is moral, I believe that abortion is morally permissible. This basically goes to say to protect the wide arrange of individuals that would have one we need to make it as safe as possible. Also, it must be understood that just like attaining an illegal firearm or drug, the prohibition of abortion would have little to no effect on the amount and in some cases availability of an abortion. In some cases it may be medically necessary and an individual who would otherwise love to have a child is forced into getting an abortion. Finally, many women with dreams of college who are forced to carry their child to term never achieve their fiscal goals and rely on welfare. In the interest of societal safety, decreasing welfare, and decreasing monetary gains of criminal activity we must accept abortion as morally permissible, but not morally favorable.

Abortion has been one of the main and major contentious issues of our times especially by most public leaders in both Religion and Politicians. To get elected in public office here in the USA, just support the movements that are against abortion who are the biggest spenders and those that hang on to your morality and you are sure to get judged or elected. I know it is legal but on the other hand why do they make all and I mean all aspects of abortion so secret.? If it is legal, then why not publish all its statutes or be open with them. Is it not all about Morals and Principals which are wholly governed by our cultures and traditions? Informed consent and abortion limit terms are just but a few that are contradicting and not practiced statutes in abortion. This link will give you an idea of why abortion should be made illegal, especially when you think of it as your child being the one who is undergoing that process. http://www.lifenews.com... I still think Abortion should be made illegal and that way we can have free access to the information and procedures for relevant prosecution of the perpetrators because when its illegal, then everything about it becomes public.

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Therefore, abortion is accepted. Rules: No new arguments in R4. If you forfeit a round you automatically lose.

Fetuses don't experience harm from an abortion, which means there's no harm from legalizing abortion, so allow bodily autonomy. Also, in some cases, abortion threatens the life of the mother, and the mother can actually experience infringing of their interests- which means it's a reason to allow abortion. Pro's question is irrelevant- but I answered it anyway.

I hope this will be an exciting, Informative, And respectful dialogue despite having opposite views; and will bring both of us closer to the truth, Whatever that may be. Now let's define our terms I affirm that Abortion is a medical procedure (surgical or medical abortions) designed specifically to kill a fetus. I deny that Abortion can be accidental, Or is an emergency procedure. The reason I deny it as an emergency or life saving procedure, Is that most life threatening pregnancies are treated by inducing labor. The treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not a surgical abortion because it takes almost 3 days to dilate the cervix to prepare for a surgical abortion, And would be far too late to save the life of the mother. We can agree that legal can be defined as permissible by law I would like to hear which cases you would approve the option of abortion, And which cases you would disapprove the option of abortion, Before we go on further than that. Here is my first argument 1. All human beings from conception to brain death are persons 2. A fetus is a human being that is living post-conception and before brain death 3. A fetus is a person My defense for the first premise comes from the fact that you cannot draw a line of person-hood other than conception that does not also apply to humans we would all regard as persons. Lets take a common example Viability Coma patients are completely dependent on other people and machines to survive, They cannot survive on their own. Individuals with insulin pumps are not completely viable either to name a few. I cannot go into the full explanation of defending the second premise, So I will just provide a link to the article in which I got all of the information anyway. . https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ This would lead straight into my second argument 1. The unjustified killing of a person is murder 2. A fetus is a person 3. Abortion is the unjustified killing of a fetus 4. Abortion is murder We can agree that murder should be illegal due to the fact it is unethical. I do not have the space to continue my defense so I await your reply and will answer your objections as well as continue my justification of my premises as best I can. Back to you


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The Right to Choose: Abortion Must Stay Legal
The right to an abortion is rooted in the fundamental right of an individual (the mother), who is undoubtedly a conscious human being, to safeguard her own well-being. While preventing harm to the woman is a primary rationale, abortion can also be justified for various reasons, such as birth control, avoiding the birth of a child with severe disabilities, or in cases of unwanted pregnancies. In an era where contraception is widely accessible, it is irrational to engage in behaviors that could potentially lead to an unwanted pregnancy. However, it is unrealistic to expect all women to always use preventive measures, and sometimes, an abortion is the only viable option.
The status of a fetus as a potential citizen is uncertain, and it is unreasonable to equate a cluster of cells at the moment of conception with a fully developed human being. A woman should have the autonomy to determine when a fetus becomes a human being, and denying her that right by outlawing abortion is unjustified. Moreover, the day when a fetus can be safely removed and developed outside the womb has yet to come, and until then, abortion must remain a legal option.
There are numerous reasons why a woman may seek an abortion, such as financial instability, the result of a traumatic event like rape, or simply not being ready for parenthood. Would you want to bear the financial burden of supporting unplanned children with your tax dollars? Would you deny a rape victim the right to terminate a pregnancy that is a constant reminder of her trauma and carries the genes of her attacker? It is not just for rape victims, but for all women who may not want to carry an unintended pregnancy to term. Additionally, the growing population and the potential for unwanted children to be loved less than planned ones should also be considered.
In conclusion, the right to choose to have an abortion is a critical aspect of women's autonomy and should remain legal.

Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.

I will be the proposition and will set the movement:The mechanism This house believes that the abortion of fetuses before the 12th week is moral and should be legal. I know that it is legal. I would love it if somebody who knew what they were talking about would take the case of the opposition. The rounds will be :Round 1 = Prop mechanism and op openingRound 2 = prop main arguments and op rebuttalRound 3 = Extension on any points previously madeRound 4 = summary speechOk round 2, my main argument (PS screw you, my youtube videos are amazing, I hate you! I hate you! aaaaaaaaaaahuhuhu! :( Sorry, sorry about that, I just, I just really love my youtube videos. ) Anyway, some arguments! SentienceRight, so this is the main argument the proposition will be using. Up until the 12th week of pregnancy, the fetus remains and non-sentient (not alive or conscious) extension of the mother. The fetus is not alive up until this point and as such there is no wrong in removing it from the mother. If the mother wants this extra bit of flesh removed from her body, fine. Let her. It is a woman's right to have control over her pregnancy. 9 times out of 10 the reason a woman will go through with the abortion procedure for 1 of 2 reasons. 1 the woman did not get pregnant on purpose and does not wish or is not ready to bring up a child.2, there is serious medical conditions with the baby which will make it's life a worse thing than not having that life to begin with. So a sub-point :Up bringing. So what do you think the chances are of the non aborted child having a good life? Well, let's look at the evidence. In 2011 91% of abortions in the UK were carried out before the 13th week of gestation. And 78% before the 10th week. Medical abortions accounted for up to 47% of the total. And 1% were carried out because of fear that the child would be handicapped. ( This means handicapped to the point where they could still live a happy life, not something like downs syndrome. ) So looking at these stats do you really think women who get abortions are baby killing monsters, or just women who got pregnant accidentally or who's child would be seriously disabled? The latter? I thought so. So let's think of a woman who did not get a child aborted. She got pregnant accidentally ( because who would abort a child they tried for? ) and doesn't have the money or time to bring up a child. What do you think the chances are that the child will be put up for adoption. They are actually 1 in 5000. And with 69000 children in the UK born every year, that is a high chance. If they aren't adopted, how do you think they will live. They will put strain on their mothers for food and money. Ultimately, they will drag the family into debt. I am not saying you should value money over life, but if a woman doesn't think she can bring up a child happily then she probably didn't get pregnant on purpose and should be able to get that child adopted. Remember the mechanism I can't stress this enough, we are talking about abortion up to the 12th week of gestation. No later. Do not ignore the mechanism. You are trying to prove that it is immoral and should be illegal.

Women who are victims of rape should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. 1 in 3 women are likely to be victims of sexual violence in their lifetime (1) . If abortion was made illegal, 33% of women would be forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will. This can interfere with a woman's life to the highest extent. Most of the women who face rape and sexual violence which result in pregnancy are not physically, mentally, or financially prepared to raise a child. The option for abortion should be readily available for these women because it is their right as a human being to decide what they would like to do with their own body. Not only does making abortion illegal disrupt and violate the rights of women across America, it also increases the amount of unwanted and accidental children in the country. While adoption seems like an easy solution to an unintended pregnancy and a convenient substitution for abortion, millions of unwanted children are awaiting adoption and will remain orphan or be sent to foster care (2). 400,540 children are living without permanent families in the United States. 115,000 of those children are eligible for adoption, however 40% of these children will wait an agonizing 3 years until someone adopts them (3) . To bring a child into this world only to send them to an orphanage or foster care without guarantee of a permanent home until adulthood, and to increase the growing number of children waiting to be adopted in America is a cruel and heartless punishment to those who were a result of rape and accident. (1) http://www.oneinfourusa.org... (2) http://amplifyyourvoice.org... (3) http://www.ccainstitute.org...

Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod

According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.

In the majority of the western world abortion is considered a suitable operation for women who are not able or do not want to bear children. In these countries many people agree with abortion, and, as you can see in the opinion polls of this website more than half of the users also approve of abortion. I am here to argue for the subject of abortion because I also believe that it is a suitable method for unfortunate women who do not and do not deserve want a pregnancy.

All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.

I aim to initially clarify the points of disputation before proceeding, so I will be as brief as I can manage. I will straight away state that I intend to invoke political ideology as a contextual background and as instructive motive behind the main variants of opinion within the abortion debate. For this round, I will directly quote Pro's arguments and respond. Finally, please note that I am from South Africa, where abortion is one hundred percent legal. I intend to argue in the American context, so please feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted anything as a result. Also please note some spelling may differ from US standards. "The Pros position is that the abortions of fetuses, which do not endanger the mother, are immoral" Firstly to assert that abortions should only be performed for maternal safety, so as to leave a viable vessel for possible future progeny, is to admit that women are nothing more than chattel; to be viewed inexorably as life support systems for fetuses and potential runny noses and skinned knees. By this argument, women must either practice celibacy (the only 100% guaranteed form of contraception-well almost, if you count the Immaculate Conception) or else risk being the hostages of their reproductive biology, up until to the age of final fertility. ". .. if the con believes that abortion is a terrible act no matter the justification for it? " The con rejects the premise. Abortion is a nuanced argument but the blunt suggestions below, falsify Pros objective and obstinate stance. If not, they will help inform the debate going forward (a brief riposte by Pro, in part or whole, would be appreciated): -If birth control was practiced but failed -If the pregnancy is a product of rape -If the pregnancy is a product of an incestuous relationship -If the pregnancy is part of an arranged or child marriage -If a significant risk exists of passing on a genetically transferable disease -If pregnancy is a result of mis- or under- education -If the women was not in a culpable state of mind at the time of conception (this includes acute and chronic psychological states of mind affected by neurophysiology or external factors) " . .. and should be outlawed by proper legislation. .. " With regard to the legislative aspect, I would like to know by what authority Pro, or anyone else would claim the right to force child birth? In Roe v. Wade the constitutional right to privacy was weighed with the states interest in the fetus and it was found that severely limiting a women's agency over her reproductive biology, did not pass constitutional muster. I am intent to understand why the Pro believes: 1. Conservative, pro-life opinion is superior to a majority vote of a supreme court 2. Conservative, pro-life morality (usually of the religious stripe) should replace the overarching law (the constitution) of the explicitly secular, United States? "Where does life begin? This is the question that must be answered by both sides of the argument regarding abortion. The pro believes that life begins at conception. This belief is based on the idea that there is a set of natural processes which eventually leads to a human being outside of the womb" Let's for the sake of argument, tentatively agree that life (at least in potential) occurs at conception. This, regrettably, does not help us in deciding at what point a fetus has rights equal to or superior to its fully fledged human incubator (the mother). Can a zygote open a bank account? Can an embryo vote? Can a fetus tell us if it prefers existence to non? Even if we were to agree on some point, we still have all our work ahead of us. I assume that Pro wishes to converge on the question because Pro anticipates this would demonstrate that, if life is said to exist then objectively, it cannot be taken away. However we have a difficulty: Pro is also pro death penalty (as are the majority of Conservatives ). This displays that Pros side subjectively believes there exist scenarios in which the ending of life, by human intervention, is sometimes a justifiable action. That leaves us with the problem: arguing as if we will reach incontrovertible, objective truth. I would like Pro to rethink, re-frame or clarify this question if he feels I have misunderstood it. "Abortion seeks to end these natural processes by destroying the fertilized egg and ipso facto destroying a potential human life. " If abortion is an ending of the natural process, by that definition, contraception is, if not the ending of natural processes then the manipulation there of. Would contraception not be considered, as it is in Catholicism, a violation of the natural order or if you prefer Monty Pythons: '. .. every sperm is sacred. .. ' . Does Pro intend to mean that the natural order should not be interfered with at all, for any reasons? Would this then extend to and cover all forms of human intervention that assists or ends life, e. g. should we take polio vaccines? Should we pull the life support plug on the brain dead, etc? "The second argument as to why abortion is a moral evil is that any argument proposing that a fetus is not a human can be applied to the worth of a human being outside of the womb. This is dangerous because it deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people. " I feel that there are arguments, especially relating to autonomy and agency, which can be related to scenarios outside of the womb but I dismiss the imagined outcome of denigrating human life as being automatic or guaranteed. As a brief and blunt example of possible arguments, I will employ the poor go to, end of life, coma patient. They have no agency, nor autonomy. They require external forces to survive. If they do not survive without life support, the action of pulling the plug is not considered murder and is made often times for purely pragmatic reasons, such as financial pressure. I am afraid that, unless Pro can produce evidence that abortion is directly linked to "the murder of millions of people" this premise would be shaky, at best. Thank you for your consideration. With this, I end my opening impressions.

I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. Therefore, abortion is allowed.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The legality of abortion should be upheld.
Indeed, I only view abortion as murder if it's performed without a valid reason. If we consider the fetus to be alive, then all such "murders" should be treated equally under the law. But who determines the validity of an abortion? Each case would need individual scrutiny to ascertain necessity. My adversary suggests that a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy is committing murder. Let's examine this logic through a hypothetical situation. If a woman pays for an abortion, and the doctor performs the procedure, under this perspective, the woman is culpable, not the doctor. Yet, both the doctor and a hired assassin are merely executing their jobs. What shields one from legal repercussions and not the other?

The argument that miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter, yet exempt from legal punishment, is flawed. According to legal sources [1], involuntary manslaughter carries a prison sentence of 10-16 months, fines, and probation. Miscarriages can be natural or induced by lifestyle factors like drug use or stress. Medical dictionaries state that approximately 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, primarily due to genetic abnormalities. With such a high rate of miscarriage, how can we justify imprisoning women for an uncontrollable biological process?

My opponent presents a scenario involving a fertilized chicken egg, which is intriguing but ultimately irrelevant. Unlike the egg, which doesn't consume the mother's resources, a fetus does. Why should a fetus have rights that supersede the woman's when it's the fetus utilizing her body and resources? The argument that breathing motions define life is weak. I agree that breathing motions alone don't constitute life, which is why I don't consider a fetus as alive. By emphasizing breathing motions as a sign of life, my opponent contradicts their own stance on the viability of life within the womb.

References:
1. http://criminal.findlaw.com...
2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;

God has given us the gift of choice. Abortion is a choice. If a woman is raped and impregnated... why should she have to keep the baby? Every day she sees that child, she will be reminded of that incident. If a woman has medical issues, and if she gives birth she will die...you're saying she should have to die? Think of third world countries. People with seven kids and all of them are skeletons because the parents can't afford to feed them? It's bad to abort, when the child will end up dying from starvation or disease? It's bad to not end the life before they suffer? And every single child can not be adopted or sponsored...not every person can be forbidden to have sex. Will they abort anyways? Probably not, but it's an example. Think of a woman that gets pregnant. She can't even pay for her own food bills. How is she going to pay for a child? She won't be able to afford proper prenatal care...and not every person in that situation will have someone financially backing them that wants that baby. She won't be able to work during a certain time during her late pregnancy, so who will pay her bills then? So wouldn't it be better to abort the child?

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

I believe abortion should be illegal as it is a violation of human life. Inside the womb, The child has it's own heartbeat, Blood type and DNA. It also has a zinc powered flash when it is conceived, Indicating the creation of a human life. One cannot argue that a human does not value outside the womb morally, So why do we let mass slaughters take place on the unborn? It is immoral and should be illegal to harm a child, In or out of the womb. I am looking forward to a civil debate, And hope we can both learn off each other's opinions.

I think that abortion should be legal. 1. I understand that some people could use abortion for the wrong reasons, but people will abuse anything to their advantage. 2. No one is good enough to decide if abortion is right or wrong for each and every single person in America. So, everyone should be able to make their own choice. Some people are raped, and if abortion was illegal, would have to look at their stomach as a painful reminder of that event. Every time they would look into the child's eyes, they would remember. No one should have to go through with that. 3. Abortion being illegal doesn't make it mandatory. People just get to make their own choice. Supporting it doesn't make you a baby killer, it makes you a proponent of free choice. 4. Adoption isn't always an option. Some people may not want to give up their baby, even though they can't support it. They would feel too attached, once it is born, to let it go. They (assuming they are young) might drop out of school and ruin the baby's and their lives. Also, even if the child is put up for adoption, the child may feel rejected, and feel out of place when other students talk about family history (1). Also, adopted children may be more inclined to commit suicide according to this study (2). I believe that choice is the only way to truly allow people their freedoms. People can't always choose when to get pregnant, and sadly, sometimes it is worse for everyone (parents & child) for the baby to be born. (1): http://family.findlaw.com... (2): http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Abortion is the right of an individual woman. Whether they choose to get one or not it should always be an available option. It is not the right of myself or anyone else to deny that woman her rights to an abortion. If you do not wish to have an abortion than don't get one but why strip others of that right. A woman should be able to decide what she does with he own body. Every child born should be wanted. The consequences of not allowing abortion in a steryl place would result in women going into back-alley abortion clinics.

I think elective abortion is a right to women (I am a man), as women have the right to their own bodies. If they want to end a pregnancy for ANY reason, they should have the option to do so. Whether you believe it is moral or not, it should be legal and available for all pregnant women. It's just like gay marriage, a lot of people don't like it, but marriage equality should be legal as love is a fundamental right for all people. Getting back to abortion, women should have the option to abort their child. Period. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, it makes sense to be able to abort the baby so you don't have to go through the pregnancy at all. So now I'll address the ethics aspect of abortion. Yes, it can be considered murder, but at the same time, it is not a developed human being and therefore does not share the same rights as one. You can even say that the yet-to-be-born baby is not alive, as it would not be able to live without being in its mother's womb, and an abortion will not be performed if the baby is past a certain stage of development. With this fact, it is obvious that abortion doctors and clinics will not perform one on a formed baby, and the baby is not fully alive until birth, and does not have the full rights of a human being extended to it until birth as well. I am interested to see how you respond to my women's rights thoughts.

It is my belief that it is a mothers natural inherited right to choose rather or not to terminate a pregnancy.

I am pro life, and I believe abortion on demand should be illegal at all stages. If you believe abortion should be legal on demand, you may present your case first. By on demand, I mean for any reason. This is not about instances of rape, incest, or the safety of the mother. This is over the issue of whether a mother should be able to get an abortion whenever she wants to. Since this issue revolves around when life begins, I ask my opponent to provide the criteria that they believe must be satisfied before the baby has a right not to be killed.

To further clarify my position. There should be no punishments for having an abortion even though it is a not the most morally favorable option. It should never be the go to option. However, since it is impossible to stop people from doing back alley abortions, in the interest of public safety, we must accept abortion by choice in order to keep the general public safe and healthy. Strangely, we are on the same page of this debate agreeing that it should be allowed, but not as the go to option. If I am understanding you correctly we are on the same page.

The woman is going to be the one who has to go through labor and take care of the child. So obviously the woman should be the one to make the final call in whether they have an abortion or not.


Question: Should the Legality of Abortion be Upheld?

Abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances.

It is imperative to consider the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn. The argument that women should have the autonomy to choose when to have children is often cited, but it neglects the rights of the fetus. The government has a responsibility to protect all lives, including those that are not yet born.

Financial stability and relationship stability are crucial for raising a child, but this does not justify ending a life. The argument that an unwanted pregnancy is worse than abortion is flawed, as it dismisses the value of life and the potential for adoption as an alternative.

The moral argument against abortion is not subject to personal interpretation. The taking of a life is universally recognized as wrong. Those who believe in abortion should not be provided with the means to do so, as it goes against the fundamental principle of protecting life.

A fetus is legally and scientifically a human being. It has a unique DNA and genetic makeup, and its termination can be equated to murder. The argument that a fetus is not alive is unfounded, as it is a living organism with the potential to develop into a fully formed human being.

Prohibiting abortions does not lead to unsafe and illegal methods. It encourages alternatives such as adoption and responsible sexual behavior. Safe and legal ways to end a pregnancy should not be provided, as it goes against the sanctity of life.

Abortion does not prevent unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. It only serves as a means to terminate them. The argument that making abortion illegal is a class struggle is unfounded, as it is not a privilege reserved for the wealthy. All individuals, regardless of their financial status, should have access to safe and legal alternatives to abortion.

Making abortion illegal does not equate to compulsory pregnancy. It simply upholds the right to life for all individuals, including the unborn. The argument that making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy is flawed, as it fails to address the root causes of unintended pregnancies.

A woman's right to choose abortion is not a fundamental right. It goes against the fundamental right to life. Personhood begins at conception, not at birth. The argument that a fetus is not a person is unfounded, as it has a unique genetic makeup and the potential to develop into a fully formed human being.

Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions does not reduce injury and death caused by unsafe and illegal abortions. It only serves to normalize and promote the taking of a life. The argument that the anti-abortion position is based on religious beliefs is unfounded, as

Danger Argument. Given that pregnancy results in 14 times more deaths than abortions, I will use this statistic against my opponent. If 56 million people are lost every year due to abortion, 784 million people die every year from pregnancy. This argument is not really relevant though, considering that women know the risks of an abortion going in to the abortion.Killing Argument. I generally don't attack sources, but Yahoo Answers really is not a reliable source. Like I said in the first round, many doctors agree that "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependant on a woman's body to survive. A fetus simply cannot be considered a human being because it cannot survive outside the womb. Women should have the right to choose what to do with a fetus inside their body.

First of all, a minor clarification. You keep referring to the fetus as a baby; it is not. It is a fetus.Next I would like to point out a few inaccuracies. You say that the process is "extremely painful" for the child. This is simply not true. Depending on which source you use, the fetus is able to feel pain at sometime between 20-24 weeks following conception. [1] 91% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, and only 0.1% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks. [2] So your claim about fetal pain is simply not true.Just out of curiosity: what is your stance on abortions if childbirth would cause the mother to die? What if the fetus has some sort of birth defect that would cause it to die as soon as it was born? What about abortions performed because of incest?About adoption: you have a good point. But adoption and foster care services are not able to handle a new influx of children."Currently, there are close to 400,000 children in state custody; only half have permanent plans for placement. Meanwhile, employees in protective services are underpaid and overworked, treading water to try to ensure that all of the children in their care are happy and healthy. Anyone who believes that adoption or foster care is a natural solution to growing restrictions on reproductive rights is kidding themselves." [3]Finally, just as a more practical point, legalized abortion lowered crime rates. Since most abortions are from unwanted pregnancies or because the mother feels that she wouldn't be able to be a good parent, children born from mothers that would have liked to get an abortion are likely to not receive the care and support they need. This leads to problems in education down the line, and results eventually in higher crime rates. [4]As a conclusion: The baby does not feel pain, is not conscious, cannot perceive its surroundings, and it's up for debate as to whether it is alive or not (in an ethical sense). I thus argue that abortion continue to be legal as it respects women's rights and prevents crime.Looking forward to your responses!Sources1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://www.foxnews.com...3. https://rewire.news...4. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...

Few definitions to avoid semantics: abortion əG2;b;6;H0;@3;(ə)n/ noun 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. legal G2;liH0;g(ə)l/ adjective 1. relating to the law. "the European legal system" 2. permitted by law. moral G2;m;4;r(ə)l/ adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Standard DDO rules along with the common etiquette and rules apply (no plagarism, no forfeits, cite all sources, show proper debating etiquette, con shall post no new arguments in the last round e. t. c)Let's try and avoid debating semantics, definitions or topic resolution. The resolution resolved permits to the following:"The act of Abortion is wrong[immoral] and should not be legal. "If my opponent does not agree to these definitions and my understanding of the debate resolution above which I shall be abiding to he shall object to them either in the comments or in a PM BEFORE posting his next round, the opening case. If he posts the second round and thus starts the debate without both objecting and resolving the issue with me he has agreed to the definition and resolved resolution along with the rules. Neither party of the debate may object, change or challenge to the terms and definitions once the next round has been posted and the debate has been started. Failiure to abide to any of these terms results in a 7 point forfeit if deemed appropriate and valid by the voters. You may state your case, assuming you agree to this round.

I am arguing that abortion before the development of the nervous system is finished should be legal in all 50 states. For the first clarify that you understand your position. Then there will be 3 rounds to argue or give rebuttals as you see fit. If you are using any specific fact from any source cite the source at some point.

Abortion is one of these hard topics to discuss but being the controversial person I am, I will take you on. Abortion should be perfectly legal. I'll give you some examples why it should: For example: Let's say someone was raped and they didn't want a baby but now they're pregnant. She had no choice to be burdened with this baby so why should she stay burdened by it with the constant bathroom breaks, the morning sickness etc.? Another example would be if the condom split during the act. She didn't want the child so why should she? If you're against or for abortions like me, nobody wants more abortions. Abortion should be an option for those who got pregnant without wanting to especially if it was an accidental condom split or the pill fails her. If you want to have a baby by all means proceed! If you don't, the safest way to do it is don't. Remember: Whatever side of the fence you're on, nobody wants more abortions. We just think it should be an option if somebody gets pregnant without wanting to and especially if it was forced on her (rape)

I hope this will be an exciting, Informative, And respectful dialogue despite having opposite views; and will bring both of us closer to the truth, Whatever that may be. Now let's define our terms I affirm that Abortion is a medical procedure (surgical or medical abortions) designed specifically to kill a fetus. I deny that Abortion can be accidental, Or is an emergency procedure. The reason I deny it as an emergency or life saving procedure, Is that most life threatening pregnancies are treated by inducing labor. The treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not a surgical abortion because it takes almost 3 days to dilate the cervix to prepare for a surgical abortion, And would be far too late to save the life of the mother. We can agree that legal can be defined as permissible by law I would like to hear which cases you would approve the option of abortion, And which cases you would disapprove the option of abortion, Before we go on further than that. Here is my first argument 1. All human beings from conception to brain death are persons 2. A fetus is a human being that is living post-conception and before brain death 3. A fetus is a person My defense for the first premise comes from the fact that you cannot draw a line of person-hood other than conception that does not also apply to humans we would all regard as persons. Lets take a common example Viability Coma patients are completely dependent on other people and machines to survive, They cannot survive on their own. Individuals with insulin pumps are not completely viable either to name a few. I cannot go into the full explanation of defending the second premise, So I will just provide a link to the article in which I got all of the information anyway. . https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ This would lead straight into my second argument 1. The unjustified killing of a person is murder 2. A fetus is a person 3. Abortion is the unjustified killing of a fetus 4. Abortion is murder We can agree that murder should be illegal due to the fact it is unethical. I do not have the space to continue my defense so I await your reply and will answer your objections as well as continue my justification of my premises as best I can. Back to you

I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.

One word constitution. I think it should be allowed in case of rape or insest. Abortion is murder. In the constitution it states you get freedom of liberties unless you take away another's.

Thanks for instigating. Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick. But first some definitions relevant to the debate: Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Contentions: C1: Abortion is NOT murder Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution. In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong. I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances. C2: Valuing Women’s Rights I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events. C4: Abortion is a right For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child. I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.

Resolved: Abortion should not be legal in any circumstances. We have heard that it is said that abortion should be allowed when the mother is endangered. This is in itself unconstitutional. Take a look at the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 1 Notice the amendment says " deprive a person of life."? The current standards for abortion are that abortion is legal under any circumstances in the United States.2 As we can see, this gruesome process is legal under any circumstance, such as rape or willing pregnancy. Moving on, I noticed a flaw in Pro and his argument. He says that we willingfully take a fetus and kill it without question but then he says that if a mother is terminally ill, abortion is key. Going back to the argument I made above. Even if the mother is ill, this is unconstitutional. The mother agreed to the pregnancy. If I take a coin, it will be rusted in two years. Will I be willing to throw this away just because it is rusted? See, the analogy I am trying to make is that.... You have life in you. Will an illness cause life to go away? As statistics show, more people are in support of pregnancies being aborted due to an illness on part of the mother. 3. Pro has obviously not done any research on this topic, as his sentence affirms that these lawa should be reformed when they are already in favor of the abortion procedure in certain circumstances. Pro, can you clarify what you meant when you stated that countries should change their laws? That is a strawman. Hope to have a nice debate. 1.https://www.law.cornell.edu... 2 http://worldabortionlaws.com... 3. http://www.gallup.com...