Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion is Morally Unjustifiable

Women should not have the option to terminate a pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest, or when medically necessary. Abortion should be classified as a form of homicide committed by the mother. If a woman proceeds with an abortion, she should be held accountable and serve time in prison for taking a life. The same penalty should apply to the physician who performs the procedure. No one should have the authority to end a life simply because they are unable to shoulder the responsibility of caring for it. There are other viable options for the child's welfare, and abortion is not the sole solution.

! 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 accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for "abortion" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.

1. Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. 2. Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs. 3. The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion 4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. 5. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead. 6. Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion. 7. Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time. 8. Making abortion illegal is also a class struggle since the rich can always go to other places where it is legal & have an abortion whilst the poor cannot do this, but have to resort to unsafe abortions which can lead to their death. 9. Making abortion illegal is more or less compulsory pregnancy which contradicts the quest & fight for freedom. 10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency. 11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right" 12. Personhood begins at birth, not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (fetus), not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. 13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. 14. The anti-abortion position is usually based on religious beliefs and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law. 15. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman"s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000, whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. 16. Access to abortion is necessary because contraceptives are not always readily available. Women need a doctor's prescription to obtain many birth control methods, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, and the diaphragm. 17. Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to bring babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions to full term. 18. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse. 20. A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. Having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. 21. Abortion reduces crime. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies, and since unwanted babies are often raised in poverty, their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood are increased. 22. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby? 23. We get right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness when we are born. he fetus does not have these rights until it is born. So abortion is not murder & abortion does not go against the rights of a fetus since it does not have any until born. 24. Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive. 25. If someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal 26. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 27. Being a mother is just one option for women.* Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 28. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. Sources 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://abortion.procon.org... 3. http://www.topix.com...

I am arguing as for abortion. The reason being is that it is the choice of the woman; and if the man is there, him also; to keep to zygote or not. If they don't then let it be. Another reason is that there might be underlying issues with why the woman wants an abortion; like say if she got raped, or incest. That's why I feel like some one should have the choice to choose if they want to carry the child for nine months, or have the choice to abort it with in the first trimester.

I stand by my argument, as most man-made laws are based upon laws of nature. Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law[1]. Due to this, most legislations in the world are based on natural law, for example, The US Declaration of Independence[2]. Hence, my justification that abortion must be declared as a right because it is morally strong, is indeed well-founded. Besides, the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? Therefore, pregnant women's right of opting abortion must be protected by law. Sources: 1. Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Clarendon Press. 2. http://www.archives.gov...

Since my opponent forfeits this around, I will add another possible contention, and will follow that up with how we can possibly reduce the need for the act of abortion.I have argued that sustainability has been the number one reason for most of human existence, and as I stated before, for most of that time the process of abortion was not understood, and instead infanticide was the typical course taken. [1] And, it is still a human rights issue today, estimated to be 1 in 3000-5000 children of all ages, and 2.1 per 100,000 newborns per year. [2] This leads me to the follow argument.Contentions 5: access to abortion reduces human right violations1. People will commit infanticide, which is a human rights violation.2. Legal access to abortion contributes to a large reduction in infanticide. [3]3. Thus, safe access to abortion can reduce human right’s violations.Conclusion: Abortion is favoredConclusion elaborated on: people will commit infanticide for a number of reasons: including, but not limited to their ability care for the child, want of the child, or forced participation with group etc… Human rights are granted to a person upon birth according to international law [4]; therefore once a child is born and infanticide is committed, this is a violation of that child’s human rights. Abortion helps reduce the actions of infanticide, by giving the parent control over their reproductive system and eliminate the suffering destined for the born child.************************************************************************************The following are some substantiated criteria in which we are able to reduce the use of abortion, and some that are possible sources for reductions. 1. Strongly implementing contraception programs alone can dramatically reduce abortion rates. [5]2. Available safe access to highly regulated abortion programs (with evaluations and up-to-date educational programs), can even reduce abortions. [6] 3. Early sex education, people who learn about sex earlier are less likely to have sex [7], thus reducing the propensity for a situation that might lead to an abortion.4. The strengthening of gender equality in education, workplace / government, and home produces opportunity for women to support a pregnancy and have a more stable future for rearing the child, reducing an abortion that otherwise might have taken place(despite any other abortion done prior or after planned pregnancy). [8] By reducing some of the reasons women give for having an abortion, will in-turn reduce some of the abortion that might have otherwise taken place. 5. Mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws, by making unprotected sex acknowledged problem to avoid, may have effects that reduce risky sexual behavior of teens which can continue into adulthood. [9]6. Improved contraceptive, why it is not well studied, many do express that they don’t use condoms because it reduces the pleasure. But, not only improved pleasure but less allergenic. This is possibly a big potential for a reduction in unplanned pregnancies and thus a possible reduction in abortions: [10] [11]• 22% stated their partner did not want to use contraception.• 16% cited side effects.7. Improved ovulating detection technology and cheap reproductive screening for female and male. Having it strongly implement in social and sex education programs, could possibly reduce the reasons given for an unintended pregnancy, thus a possible reduction is the number of potential abortions: [11]• 33% felt they could not get pregnant at the time of conception. • 10% felt they or their partner were sterile. Final StatementI think I have made some solid arguments in favor of abortion, and responded to my opponent with respect, a willingness to review, learn, and argue accordingly based on what could be established, and/or reasonably argued.In total, I made 5 contentions:1) Importance of group sustainability2) Human rights3) Societal and individual health4) Reduction in criminal behavior5) Access to abortion reduces infantacide, a human rights violationsPlease take time to review each of my contention from the beginning and attempt to follow them through the rounds, and I hope those who read the debate, enjoyed it, and also find my arguments more convincing. Thank you :)I also, would like to thank my opponent Zezima.Sources[1] Harris, Marvin (1977). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. NY: Random House. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://jama.jamanetwork.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://esciencenews.com...6] http://www.guttmacher.org...[7] http://www.livescience.com...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org... (a chart of data found in this study) http://www.guttmacher.org...[10] http://std.about.com...[9] http://www.scopus.com...[11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abortion is absolutely nonsense. It should not be legal under any circumstance and I look forward for a debate.

Abortion should be illegal because many reasons, and here I will name a few: 1. It is unethical 2. An unborn baby is still a baby,babies are human beings, and therefore an unborn baby is still a human being. 3. Killing any human being is murder. 4. No person should be able to decide when another person should be killed.

First, I wish to emphasize the prompt asks whether abortion SHOULD be legal. Obviously, abortions currently are legal in the U.S., but that is irrelevant. Pro will argue why they should continue, and I will argue why they should not. I will do so on the basis of logic, science, and legal consistency, under the assumption that human life deserves to be protected. But, since there was no format specified, I will start with rebuttals. == Rebuttals == Violinist Analogy: It would, no doubt, be alarming to awake and find yourself plugged into the kidneys of a musician against your will. However, pregnancy is not akin to being kidnapped and plugged into a stranger. Consider, if you have agreed to donate your kidney to a possible recipient, then there is no justification to willingly unplug and kill that recipient. This, I contend, is a more accurate analogy to pregnancy. All sex (except rape) is consensual by definition. And, since even the best birth control cannot advertise 100% effectiveness, all consensual sex therefore comes with the possibility of pregnancy. Therefore, consenting to sex is by definition consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. This is indisputable. If we once again relate this to our consenting organ donor, then it appears Pro's analogy has little relevance. Pro did not directly bring up pregnancy due to rape, so I will not address that in this round. Woman vs. Billionaires: Once again Pro presents a false analogy. Pro tries to equate billionaires refusing to give up their fortunes to women refusing to give up their bodily rights. The problem is that these two examples are totally dissimilar. A billionaire refusing to give money to charity is not directly killing anyone. Sure, you could say indirectly maybe, but that standard could be applied to all of us - I could be indirectly killing a coal miner in Peru since my choice to flip a light switch on is driving the demand for a dangerous energy source. In contrast, abortion is directly and intentionally ending a human life who shares half your chromosomes. Big difference. 3 Day Embryo vs. 5 Yr. Old Child: An interesting moral dilemma, but I can play that game all day - what if one room contained 100 strangers and the other contained your sister? What if one had your child and one had your wife? How about a sick person vs. a healthy one? Who do you save? If both groups are morally equivalent, then would you simply flip a coin? Of course not. To reduce this dilemma to a simple checklist is a severe straw man. This analogy seems clever when applied to embryos, but if fails when applied to other types of humans, which makes it useless. If Abortion is Murder: Here Pro tries to show that "anti-choicers" must either advocate putting all women in prison or convert to pro-choice. This is largely an irrelevant point since abortion is currently legal, and it has nothing to say about why abortion SHOULD remain legal other than Pro thinks it seems "absurd." If abortion were to become illegal, obviously there would be consequences for breaking the law, as is the case with all laws. I fail to see how this is controversial. Right to Life Untenable: It is a Non Sequitur that supporting a "right to life" must mean supporting an absolute right to life. Pro gives no reason to believe one necessarily implies the other. I am not advocating a "simplistic absolute right to life" anymore than Pro is advocating a "simplistic absolute right to end life." I believe we are debating specifically about embryonic abortions, and that's what I'm going to stick to. Another straw man erected by Pro. Personhood and Rights: Here Pro tries to show that an embryo is not a person using 5 criteria. First, Pro gives us no reason to accept these 5 criteria as authoritative. I could easily offer other criteria supported by other philosophers or doctors, but let's go along with it for now. The problem is there's evidence that at just 9 weeks, an embryo can hiccup and react to loud noises [1]. This can meet Pro's criteria #1 and #3. Since Pro claimed that an embryo, even if we are "extremely flexible," meets zero criteria, this argument is now at least in doubt if not refuted. To take it further, let's apply these criteria to other people - a brain-dead person lacks 1-5, an unconscious person lacks 1-5, a severely mentally handicapped person lacks 1-5, on and on.... are none of these groups people? Can they therefore be killed at will? Not only do embryos meet some of these criteria, but this definition fails when applied to other groups of people and should be rejected. == Argument == Scientifically, legally, and logically, an embryo should be considered human life. 1. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [2]". Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [3]. The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. 2. Federal Law - even Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any action that injures a child in utero can be punished as if the injury was inflicted on the mother herself, even if the offender acted accidentally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on the insane and cannot be justified with logic. For the sake of legal consistency, restricted abortion should not be legal. 3. Logical Beginning of Life - Beyond conception, there is no clear or consistent definition of life's beginning. There are very few people who draw the line at birth - even the most ardent abortion supporter would not advocate aborting 3 minutes before birth. But where then DOES the line get drawn? 3 hours? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months? This is a very difficult question to answer since there is no clear answer to be found. If there is no obvious or consistent definition of life, then there is no obvious or consistent time to say abortion is ok. Viability is often used by pro-choice advocates, but this is a largely meaningless term that I'd be happy to address in the next round if Pro wishes. [1] http://www.leaderu.com... [2] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [3] https://www.nlm.nih.gov............

Abortion should not be abolished. My first stance is that Americans have constitutional freedom, and the freedom to make a choice on whether to keep an (unborn) child or not is up to the woman. Do we have other forms of birth control? Yes. I could list them for you right now but that would waste valuable time. What we also have here is people who are either not ready or too poor to support a child. Would you like to be unwanted? Dirt poor? Malnourished? I sure wouldn't want to be, and I'm lucky not to. But, if abortion is abolished in America, we will have kids who grow up in the said unfortunate ways. Thank you for reading my argument.


Question: Should the Legality of Abortion be Upheld?

Abortion should remain a legal option for women.

1. Abortion is fundamentally about granting women the autonomy to decide when they are ready to have children, considering their age, financial stability, and relationship status. It is not the government's role to restrict this personal choice.
2. Raising a child requires significant emotional, social, and financial commitment. If someone feels unprepared for parenthood, it's better to allow abortion than to force an unwanted pregnancy, which can lead to a child growing up in an unsuitable environment without the love, care, and stability they need.
3. Arguments against abortion are often based on moral grounds, which are subjective and should not be legislated. Those who believe abortion is morally acceptable should have the means to do so, while those who disagree should have the choice not to.
4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically considered a person or a living being, so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life, as the fetus is not a person nor alive.
5. A fetus is similar to a brain-dead person, lacking self-awareness or consciousness, thus it can be considered non-living.
6. Banning abortions does not eliminate the practice; it merely drives women to seek unsafe, illegal procedures. Providing safe and legal avenues for abortion is a more responsible approach.
7. Abortion prevents unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, which in turn reduces the risk of child neglect, as mothers may not want children at that particular time.
8. Banning abortion exacerbates social inequality, as the wealthy can afford to travel to countries where it is legal, while the poor are forced into unsafe procedures, potentially leading to death or permanent health issues.
9. Making abortion illegal is akin to enforcing compulsory pregnancy, which contradicts the fight for personal freedom.
10. Banning abortion increases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies, which often result in illegal abortions, leading to death, health problems, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency.
11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a fundamental right.
12. Personhood begins at birth, not conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. The concept of personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact, and fetuses are incapable of feeling pain during abortion.
13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injuries and deaths caused by unsafe, illegal abortions.
14. The anti-abortion stance is often rooted in religious beliefs, which should not influence legislation and threaten the separation

In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to "fix" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.

In this debate, my objective is to clarify any misconceptions of abortion as well as insert philisophical context into the debate as well. C1-Legality:Roe v. Wade was the supreme court case where the judges deemed barring people from abortion to be completely unconstitutional. The supreme court case also stated that females have rights towards the longevety of the embryo. The embryo or fetus does not have access to the same rights as a female. The fetus's transition to legitimate personhood commences in the 22nd to 24th week. C2-Embryo or FetusIn order for con to win on grounds of legality, than con must prove that the embryo or fetus is equivilant to a human being. In this contention, I will convey the differances between an embryo/fetus and a human being. between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being. " Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beingsthey are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a womans uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate. C3-BrainThe brain commences in a fetus on the 22nd to 24th week. Duing those weeks, abortions are deemed illegal. I will also propound the notion that the human brain is really the essential component of a human being. Without a brain, the human is not truly a being. The brain controls the conciousness and subconcious parts of the human body. Without the brain, a human would be incapable of walking, talking, eating, and working. The actions mentioned previously are actions essential towards the notion of a human being. A brain does not constitute for an embryo or an early fetus allowing for there to be more transparent similarities between a sperm/ova and an embryo/fetus. Adhering to Pro-life logic would allow for one to deem expulsion of sperm to be a signifcation of death. The sperm could have been utilized for reproduction, but the irresponsible male only excerisises the satisfactory perogative. C4-Statistics:j25; In 2008, umarried women accounted for 85% of abortions. j25; Women between the ages of 20-24 accounted for 32% of abortions. j25; Women who have had no prior abortion account for 55% of abortions. j25; Women who make under poverty wage($20,000) account for 60% of abortions. C5-Repercussions of refraining:The last statistic should astound many, because a depletion of 16,500 dollars should occur for the intention to raise a healthy child. 16,500 dollars is the average amount of money spent on a child. The lives of those women would be signifcantly degraded, and the repercussions the abortion being deemed illegal would lead to not only the single mother suffering from destitution, but also the child being destitute. I would request several inquiries on my opponent's perspective on abortion to bolster the awareness in the debate.1. What are the differances between a sperm and a fetus or embryo?2. Do you really believe a human body part is vindication of a human being?3. How do the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of the mother. 4. Are you content with the fact that many single mothers will suffer destitution if abortion were deemed illegal? Works Cited:. http://www.abort73.com...https://www.lv.com...http://www.10storiesofsinglemothers.org.au...

Abortion is rang no one should murder there unborn child. If a women has a right to the choice of the abortion ,,well the baby has a choice and should have the right to live. Its Evil to kill a baby .there should be no argument because any rebuttal means your stance is kill a child infant you created. it makes no sense religious wise, morally makes no sense at all, and it shouldn't make legal sense because murders illegal.

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...

First off, before the debate begins, Abortion is a tricky issue, which many have strong opinions about and please vote on how has the best arguements. First off the main issue here is why abortion, should not be legal. Now I do agree that it can be seen as a moral issue, but you must understand, one thing, it is taking another life. Why do Republicans say no to abortions, yet say yes to the death Penalty, why is it the inverse for Democrats. I believe that no life should ever be taken. 1. reason why you are taking a human being, that has a life. Two you can easily put this child into a adoption agency, which by the way is successful everywhere. Third, yes a woman has control of her body, but woman hold other people with them at some points, why should a teenager or a naive person or even a rape victim, take a life, that has already began. It is unjust, for someone to stand here and tell me that taking a life is just, because a woman has control of her body. We all know that isn't true, even with the example Britney Spears. A vote for the Neg is a vote for giving a voice to those who don't have one. A vote for the Aff is a vote for silencing that voice forever.

Abortion should not be abolished. My first stance is that Americans have constitutional freedom, and the freedom to make a choice on whether to keep an (unborn) child or not is up to the woman. Do we have other forms of birth control? Yes. I could list them for you right now but that would waste valuable time. What we also have here is people who are either not ready or too poor to support a child. Would you like to be unwanted? Dirt poor? Malnourished? I sure wouldn't want to be, and I'm lucky not to. But, if abortion is abolished in America, we will have kids who grow up in the said unfortunate ways. Thank you for reading my argument.

Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't. there are a number of moral arguments to the debate. the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive. now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception. Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth? most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth. and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life. I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response. (1) https://www.princeton.edu.................. (2) www.biology-online.org (3)www.dictionary.com

Abortion is a sensitive topic for billions of people around the world and to pose an argument in support of it is to bring upon you the scorn and disapproval of many. The issue of abortion is especially sensitive among those whose religion speaks against it, and why not? let us not shirk from the facts, abortion is murder of sorts, the killing of an unborn child, the extinguishing of a perhaps bright and promising future with a few simple drugs. A life put out as quickly and as painfully as blowing out a candle. Abortion can in no ways possible be argued to be a pleasant and enjoyable experience. What the religions say is clear cut, abortion is against god/gods/great ancestors will, and i cannot argue against this, and nor do I want to, nor is it possible for me too. And it is also very true that many people who do not follow a faith also are strongly against abortion, and I would just like to point out that neither do I find It a pleasing nor happy concept that abortion is legal, BUT I do strongly, wholeheartedly understand that it is a completely necessary process, just as was world war I and II, horrific, dreadful, but necessary to protect the world as we know it. And please excuse my perhaps crude comparison but that is exactly the reason why abortion should and will remain legal, it is a process of protecting the planet, because what is the planets most important concern? Not global warming, but over-population. The world is vastly over populated. Global warming, disease, war, is all derived from overpopulation. Contraception, education, and abortion are all methods of curbing the disastrous increase of human population. Again forgive my terrible analogy but we humans are like an infestation of rats on this beautiful planet, except in our case there is no exterminator. Nobody likes being told this and even less will accept it, but stop bloody ignoring it, because it's the truth. The fact that this planet has continued to sustain us humans as long as we have existed in our diabolical number, is a miracle in itself, far greater, than Moses splitting the red sea, or Jesus turning bread to flesh and water to wine. Agreed abortion is but one of the ways to curb the overpopulation of the planet, but it is still a way, a way that that would help millions of impoverished women to ease the strain on themselves and their families, already beset by poverty and in many cases starvation. By having a further child they are putting further strain on their family, and in many cases the new born child will not live to adulthood. Many charities these days are forever preaching to us more privileged ( the fact that whoever reads this has access to a computer, internet cafe or not, makes us privileged) that we must fight against children in poverty and give them a chance to survive and grow up and lead a better life. I am all for this, I have donated many times to children charities and recognise it as a heroic and worthwhile cause. But is it not fair to say that so many more children could benefit far more if, (dare I say it) there were less of them? Hard as it may seem to accept, this is a case where the unborn, unconscious child, has to be murdered so to help the survival of his born conscious living breathing siblings, who would otherwise would be murdered through war, starvation, and disease. And to whomever thinks that the birth of more siblings would not make a difference, to the rest of their families lives, I say, wake up. Simple abortion is a cruel and cold way of helping this planet, but it is a way, we must not forget that while we sit comfortably at our warm homes drinking cold beer while typing away on our laptops (me anyway) That millions people women, men and children could benefit from abortion. And I know the question all you readers are asking right now, is even though it is legal, why are these people still suffering? The answer is two reasons. The first understandably is the mothers reluctance to kill her own child, the second is religion, both of which unfortunately I cannot argue against for I am neither a mother nor religious. But still does not undermine my view the potential that abortion could have to these millions of families. Let us not think about our own needs, our own beliefs, or what we would want for ourselves and our children. But let us think what would help others instead.

Defense "She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption." I never said she shouldn't have the choice of adoption or keeping the baby, my argument is that late term abortion should also be an option. "She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy." Contraceptives don't always work. You can use birth control pills and condoms, and still get pregnant. "A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy." No, she will not be hurt by delivering the baby. But why should she be forced to? The fetus's property rights should not be placed above those of the mother, especially because it is using the mother's resources. "A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life." If we're going to involve the right to life, then it's reasonable to expect that the same rights are conferred to the mother. She has the right to do what she wishes with her life, and her body. Your sense of what is moral or right shouldn't have anything to do with it, because that's your life. Rebuttal 1. "We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong" You are basing this analogy on your morals. Regardless of how many people agree with them, it does not justify restricting the liberties of those who do not. 2. "better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?'" Maybe it does hurt her in a horrible fashion. You can't quantify such subjective things as hurt and pain, she may be extremely upset because she's pregnant and her family refuses to accept her, or something. Unless you can reliably put yourself in her head and interpret her experiences exactly as she does, you are not qualified to make the statement that it does not hurt her, and you are also unable to make laws based on such statements. "The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks." I have already mentioned circumstances in which the mother would reasonably be unable to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, which you have not refuted. Late term abortions don't necessarily happen simply because the mother wants to have a late term abortion. "The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away." It does not have intrinsic value, there are very few things a baby can do, and none of them particularly useful. Fetuses can't do anything. If anything, it has intrinsic potential, and that potential may never be realized even if it were to live. You advocate restricting a woman's rights based on a possibility. 3. "The woman is a valuable member to society," Her first priority and responsibility is herself an her own well-being. She is an individual first, and a member of society second. "and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly." That doesn't follow from the earlier part of the statement. What is it about that woman being "a valuable member to society" that makes it the state's responsibility to ensure the perfect function of society? Also, you have not demonstrated that a perfectly-functioning society is possible, that it is the state's responsibility, or that it cannot involve any late term abortions. This is really just an assertion. "A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion." The fetus is not innocent; it is in someone else's body using their resources. If I were to break into your house and steal your food, you would understandably want me out. You would also be justified in using force to accomplish that. The same principle applies in abortions. The fetus also fails to fit the description of a valuable member of society, in that it contributes nothing. Rather, it is the woman who contributes to society. As she is the one contributing to society, it would make sense that her rights should be the ones protected by society.

By abortion keeping abortion legalized, we are losing millions of innocent lives on a yearly basis. If you are opposed to keeping guns legal in the United States; 57,000,000+ abortions have occured since 1973. Since 1973, only 1.6 million deaths as a result of gunfire. (I use the word "only" to contrast that number from the number of abortions, not to discredit the significant amount). So answer me this; what logical reasons can you give me for why abortion should remain legal?


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should remain a legal option. The core argument for its legality is rooted in the constitutional right to personal autonomy and freedom. The Constitution was designed to grant individuals the maximum freedom possible, including the freedom to make decisions about one's own body. Denying someone the right to govern their own body would be a violation of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This principle is universally recognized, as in other countries, a woman's body is her own domain.

Furthermore, the argument that abortion should be restricted because rape cases are statistically low is flawed. It is unjust to impose on the approximately 30,000 women per year who become pregnant due to rape and force them to carry a child against their will, potentially altering their lives forever. This argument also assumes a moral responsibility to keep a fetus alive, without considering the fetus's status as a life. The definition of when a fetus becomes a life is subjective and varies widely, both within and between countries. Fetal homicide laws are inconsistent, making it difficult to accurately assess the viability of a fetus.

It is important to note that the claim that an embryo is a living human being is an assertion without substantial evidence. The stages at which a fetus is considered to have life are highly subjective and have been debated for years without clear resolution. Viability is generally around 20-28 weeks, which is late in the pregnancy and most late-term abortions are already illegal. The statistics presented by opponents often do not take into account the viability of the fetus.

Moreover, the assertion that contraceptives are always effective is false. In cases where contraceptives fail, women should not be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion allows individuals to prevent harm that could result from unwanted pregnancies, particularly in situations where the child might be raised in an environment that cannot adequately support them, or where adoption is the only alternative. Abortion does not terminate a life, but rather the potential for a life to exist.

Therefore, individuals should have the right to opt out of carrying a pregnancy to term, especially considering the potential consequences of unwanted pregnancies and the limitations of contraceptive methods.

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.

This debate is "should abortion be legal?" Short answer no... Long answer noooooooo... Lol, but seriously, Abortion is murder any way that you look at it. I am excited for an intelligent debate

Women are given the freedom of choice,thus they choose if they would like to abort a child or not. Although the U.S Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, A fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is fully dependent on its mother,unlike born human beings.Even if a fetus was alive the "right to life" does not imply the right to use another persons body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs,even if doing so would save someone else's life. Also, the "right to life" does not imply a right to live by threatening another persons life. Child birth is always a threat to the mother, she can die from child birth. Source:https://www.law.cornell.edu... Abortions are one of the safest procedures done in medicine, when preformed by trained professionals of course. According to the NCBI "The risk of death by child birth is 14 times higher than that of abortion". Humans are given the freedom of choice. Abortion is also legal, so women should be allowed to have an abortion if they would like. If the child is born with a disability and will live a short,painful death, then the mother should be able to make the choice if they want to keep the child. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thanks for the strong opening arguments Con. Before I start I will point out that since Con is against abortion this implies ALL abortions. Therefore if even any abortions are justified I win the debate. 1. Right to Privacy The US Supreme Court came to the decision in the Roe V. Wade case that the right to privacy granted in the constitution encompasses abortions. This is because of a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest is that each situation is unique. One family may not have an adequate enough financial situation to be able to adequately care for a child while another teenage girl may end up being disowned by her family if she has that child. The point is that the government making the decision for all women that they cannot have abortions is severely limiting and a refusal to acknowledge that a family should be able to make the choice that best fits their personal situation. Sandra Day O'Connor claimed that "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [1] Legalizing abortion has helped women fully recognize their right to privacy. 2. Life Does Not Begin at Conception Science supports the idea that personhood begins at the time of viability, or the ability to survive outside the womb. [2][3] The constitution grants rights to all people born in the US. A fetus is not born, and not a person. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy and calling it murder is an incredible flaw in reasoning. A large amount of pregnancies actually naturally abort but there is no uproar to try and save all of those fertilized eggs. Those that say life begins at conception often claim that because the potential of a human has been achieved, aborting the pregnancy is akin to murder. By that logic we should also attempt to save individual sperm and eggs as well, in order to preserve the potential for human life. We don't hear those arguments because life is defined by development of the brain. The same situation is seen in euthanasia. Justification for that exists and the US has legalized it for good reason. 3. Abortion Happens Either Way Making abortion illegal would lead to a large amount of unsafe back-alley abortions. It has happened repeatedly in the past and resulted in the deaths of many women due to a lack of safe equipment and medicines. Outlawing abortion WILL NOT STOP IT. It will only endanger the lives of many women who feel they have no other options. Many women feel that abortion is their only option, and when we as a nation give them no other alternative other than doing it illegally, then we as a nation are responsible for those girls' horrific injuries and deaths. 4. Mother's Life Many times, refusing to abort a pregnancy would result in the death of the mother. It is very subjective whether or not the fetus is alive, but no one can deny that the woman is alive and has the right to self defense. There are two options in that situation. Allow the mother to die, which is not even subjectively murder, or terminate the pregnancy as is naturally done all the time. Outlawing abortion simply puts a subjective life over a life that everyone agrees exists. Conclusion The key issue with abortion is that it should be a personal decision; the government does not have enough knowledge of an individual's unique situation to make the determination that a woman's choice is morally wrong and should be made illegal. It has been found time and time again in court that telling a woman she does not have the right to terminate her pregnancy is wrong. [1] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al., law.cornell.edu, June 29, 1992 [2] Franklin Foer, "Fetal Viability," slate.com, May 25, 1997 [3] James Davison Hunter, Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture War, 1994

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.

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 believe that abortion should not be legal one bit I don't believe that murder is right at all, but if abortion is legal why don't they legalize killing people. God has a plan for everyone and when you have a abortion you are going against God......... You think you can prove me wrong try

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.

1. Abortion ought to be illegal The abortion of a fetus is not the innocent action some make it out to be, it is a terrible crime against a child that is not able to defend itself or have a say in its future. When a women becomes pregnet, she has an obligation to care for her baby until it is born and then either give it up for adoption or care for it like she should(in some cases adoption is nessecary, but we won't go into that). 2. A human is made at the moment of conception The second the sperm touchs the egg a human life is made, so why is aborting a fetus any different from slaughtering a baby? In the state of California, if u kill a woman that is even 1 day pregnet u are charged with 2 counts of murder, so what makes doctors special? They can kill a fetus in an office and get away with murder? Califormia proves that a gamete is infact a human life.

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