Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The US Supreme Court has established abortion as a "fundamental right" protected by the US Constitution. The landmark case of Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973, in favor of abortion rights, remains the prevailing legal stance. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution safeguards "certain areas or zones of privacy," including a woman's right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. Reproductive choice empowers women by granting them autonomy over their bodies, a cornerstone for women's independence and the ability to shape their futures. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that women's equal participation in economic and social life is facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized in her Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) dissent that undue abortion restrictions infringe upon a woman's "autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." Personhood begins after a fetus becomes viable or after birth, not at conception. Embryos and fetuses are not self-sustaining beings, and abortion terminates a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth, not conception, and fetuses are not included in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade clarifies that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the cortex, which is necessary for pain perception, does not become functional until at least the 26th week of gestation, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was supported in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death from unsafe, illegal abortions. Before abortion was legalized, women would resort to dangerous methods or seek unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions, which dropped to two by 1976 after Roe v. Wade. The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths annually, particularly in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are inaccessible. Modern

I'll start off with simple reasoning. The statement you made is true, every woman has rights to her own body and what she wishes to do with it. Although during pregnancy it's not only her body which is being affected. There is a fetus within her which is slowly developing and will soon emerge as an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING, 9 months later. I believe there are some exceptions when it comes to abortion, especially in the case of rape or where either the woman or the child is in danger. Those are the only two legitimate reasons for abortion. Otherwise every other case involves the woman to consent, meaning she is prepared to bare the responsibilities of being a mother and knows the risk that comes with having intercourse for recreational purposes, if that was the intention. After that, the child within her is no longer her own. Although it may still be in developing stage, you cannot avoid the fact that if let go, the fetus will grow into an infant once at birth.

Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says "baby-making machine" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe "home" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. " [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. " [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can "unplug," as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193

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.

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.

OK lets get started .Sorry for the delay. My first argument was to prove that pregnancy if painful,potentially torturous for a women who doesn't want the child.My question is what right do you have to put that women in torture in order to save a life of a person who she does doesn't even care about .Doesn't the women have the right to decide whether she wants to go through this pain or no t.I believe a women should have control over her own body. Imagine that you wake in the morning, you find yourself connected to a person .the person makes you sick ,the person makes you go through pain .But if you separate form him he will die .i don't think this is a sufficient reason to stay attached to that the person . It's definitely not a sufficient enough reason to force someone else to stay attached to that person. EQUALITY Suppose a women wants to put her career before having the child .She has to take maternity leave .She will get paid paid but wont develop wont get a promotion in that period .While her male counter part might get the promotion . A teen getting pregnant can't put all her efforts into studies while the guy who got her pregnant can study.If she wants to study and be better than the rest she has the right to do so .Further if she thinks she is not ready to go through that pain she has every right not to .

1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc. According to rainn.org, there are 237,868 victims of sexual assault each year, and 44% of them are under the age of eighteen. Imagine being 12 years old and pregnant due to a rape. First and foremost, can your body even handle a pregnancy at that age? According to Medline Plus, the younger a mother is below age 20, the greater the risk of her infant dying during the first year of life and infants born to teens are 2 - 6 times more likely to have low birth weight than those born to mothers age 20 or older. Even if a teen could later put the baby up for adoption, the baby would have already been exposed to dangerous conditions. Also, going back to being a pregnant 12 year old, how would that pregnancy affect your future? According to Medline Plus, teen mothers are about 2 years behind their age group in completing their education and women who have a baby during their teen years are more likely to live in poverty. There are woman out there who are put in situations such as rape, incest, or abuse and having a baby can disrupt their whole lives. http://www.rainn.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov...2. It is not the job of the government to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Whatever circumstance a women is in, the government has no way of knowing. Even if abortion was made against the law unless subject to rape, incest, etc, how can the government enforce that rule? If a woman really wanted to get an abortion, she can easily lie to get it. Also, this country prides itself on the freedom of choice, so why is the choice of women being taken away? Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, it is her decision and it will affect her life. Abortion is no easy task, it is very emotional and personal to the woman and her family. If a woman is in a situation where she has to consider having an abortion, she needs to figure that out by herself or with her close family. The government should not be able to weigh in on a decision that personal. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment. Imagine that you are a woman in an abusive relationship. You have no freedom or choice in your household and is physically and mentally abused often. What if you had gotten pregnant? Do you think you live in an environment ideal for raising a child? If my opponent had what he wanted, abortion would be illegal, and for this particular woman, adoption is not an option. Does this child deserve to grow up in such a dangerous environment? Do you think his/her life will be a good one? If a woman is in a situation that she knows is not good for a child, isn’t it her responsibility to terminate the pregnancy? Shouldn’t she at least have the choice to terminate the pregnancy? Though it is hard to picture this, there are women out there in these types of circumstances and worse. My opponent could argue the women could always find help, but does he know how dire her situation is? Does he have any way of proving that every single woman out there has a clear path to safety? According to the Center for Disease Control, at least 4 to 8 percent of pregnant women—that's over 300,000 per year—report suffering abuse during pregnancy. Also, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women between 15 and 44 and is estimated to be responsible for 20 to 25 percent of all hospital emergency room visits by women. 300,000 women a year are abused while pregnant, and on top of this, my opponent believes they shouldn't have the choice to end the pregnancy? http://www.womensweb.ca... In conclusion, I believe abortion should be legal because some women have certain circumstances, it is not the responsibility of the government, and the baby could be put in a bad situation. When a baby is born, it is completely at the mercy of its caregivers. A child is a living thing, a life, and the parents must take the initiative to protect it, at whatever cost.

The basis of this debate is (as the topic says) Abortion should be legal on request and the arguments should be relating to morals. Both my opponent and I will need to provide a moral belief on which they base their argument. The order of rounds will be: 1. Detailing the rules of debate and my opponent accepting. 2. Opening argument for both sides with no attacks on the others case. 3. Open round (attacking the opponents case allowed, rebuilding a case allowed, providing new evidence allowed etc.) but NO NEW ARGUMENTS, only more evidence for the arguments provided 4. Same rules as round 3 except no new evidence, only analysis of previous evidence. 5. Summary speech, no new analysis, only referencing previous rounds and convincing the reader who won the debate.

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.

Good Statements can be made, for legal abortion but Life Starts at the 2 cells (Sperm and Egg) when they meet. Years ago Before all of yours (Unless you are older than 120 [I think]) Was slavery In the US people treated them differently because they looked different that can be said to babies as well, doesn't mean that they are not alive, or viewed upon as livestock. People who want abortion to be legal, want because they got raped, but why would a mother give up, a mother is supposed to love her child in every way, a indescribable loving way, not cause their children's death. On the titanic the rules were Women and Children first, but Woman already lived long enough and younger or even unborn children should have more chance than a grown man or woman. I think babies are essential and the 55 Million Soon to be Lives that were killed should have a voice in our community.

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.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion rights
Can you clarify why abortion access is considered essential and why it's not universally viewed as equivalent to murder?

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.

The basis of this debate is (as the topic says) Abortion should be legal on request and the arguments should be relating to morals. Both my opponent and I will need to provide a moral belief on which they base their argument. The order of rounds will be: 1. Detailing the rules of debate and my opponent accepting. 2. Opening argument for both sides with no attacks on the others case. 3. Open round (attacking the opponents case allowed, rebuilding a case allowed, providing new evidence allowed etc.) but NO NEW ARGUMENTS, only more evidence for the arguments provided 4. Same rules as round 3 except no new evidence, only analysis of previous evidence. 5. Summary speech, no new analysis, only referencing previous rounds and convincing the reader who won the debate.

[Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. Trimester: 3 months Conception: meeting of the sperm and egg [Contention] I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest. [Reasons] 1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart. 2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. 3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions when surveyed in a CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007 registered voters agreed by an overwhelming majority (70%) that greater restictions need to be placed on abortion to (20%) who dont and (5%) who are undecided. Of that 70%, 56% of voters completely agree with my opinion. 4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception. An act is being passed through congress requiring mothers who abort to know that their infant will go through pain. This is called the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. (http://www.time.com...) I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent

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.

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.

Abortion is not immoral and it should be legal.

Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, but make it less safe. As high as 1.2 million people died attempting unsafe and illegal abortions between 1880 and 1973, and thousands more were injured. Abortions are going to happen no matter what, so if anti-choicers really care about pregnant people, they had better simmer down and let abortion be. Even if you believe that abortion kills a baby " something that not all people believe " it is true that septic abortion kills both mother and fetus. Currently, septic abortion kills about 70,000 women a year, worldwide. That"s with abortion being legal in the United States! Can you imagine how high that number would climb if it were illegal? You can shout and yell all you want about protecting the unborn, but you will not stop abortion by making it illegal. Which is more important to you: shouting about ethics and ensuring that both mother and fetus will die, or facing reality and saving at least the life of the mother? If abortion is made illegal, wealthy women will continue to have safe abortions by traveling to other places where abortion is safe, or by bribing real doctors to perform the task. Only poor women will have septic abortions. Making abortion illegal will harm poor women more than it will harm rich ones. It basically will not harm rich people at all. Given the fact that many rapes are unreported and/or unbelieved, the only way to make abortion available on demand consistently to rape survivors is to make it available on demand to everyone. (And if you honestly think that rape survivors should be forced to go through with a pregnancy, one that will physically change their bodies permanently, and cause lasting emotional and psychological scars, when they've already suffered an invasion of their body worse than anything that anyone should go through, then I"d like to force you to donate a kidney to the next person who asks. It probably won"t kill you" right? And the other person would die without it. Give the person your kidney, you murderer!) Many women have already died by being denied medically necessary abortions, the only way to make abortion available to those women who will simply die without one, IN TIME TO SAVE THEIR LIVES, is to have no legal restrictions on what constitutes a "medically necessary" abortion. If you know the statistic that shows that countries in which abortions are illegal are often those ones with the highest abortion rates, then you know that making abortion illegal doesn't stop it. http://www.guttmacher.org...... Many anti-choicers claim that legal abortion in the First World is dangerous, which is not true. Not only is legal abortion safe, here are some things that are unsafe: inducing miscarriage with drugs without physician discretion, placing foreign objects up the vagina to induce miscarriage, douching with harsh chemicals, ingesting chemicals to induce miscarriage, and self-inflicted trauma to the abdomen caused by punching/falling/etc. (all methods of abortion pre-Roe). Many doctors agree that surgical abortion by the cut-off date is easier than wisdom teeth extraction, and very early abortions are more difficult to mess up than a tooth extraction. Pregnancy and childbirth are actually more dangerous than legal surgical abortion. Every minute in the US, at least one person dies from a complication related to pregnancy/childbirth, which is 287,000 a year. Even more get sick or injured from these complications, about 10 million per year. http://www.who.int...... Approximately 400 people have died from abortion since Roe v. Wade ruling, which means 400 people in 40 years dead from legal abortion compared to approximately 11,767,000 dead from pregnancy/childbirth. Pregnancy/childbirth has killed over 27,000 times more people than legal abortion.

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

As somebody who believes in a free society as opposed to one where lives are dictated by the state I think abortion should be allowed but not enforced. Thereby it is essentially, as dictated by a free tolerant society, legal to have abortions by those medical practitioners who agree to perform them. It matters not that I personally disagree with abortions only that others do agree with them and are willing to comply to each other's desires and wants.

1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc. According to rainn.org, there are 237,868 victims of sexual assault each year, and 44% of them are under the age of eighteen. Imagine being 12 years old and pregnant due to a rape. First and foremost, can your body even handle a pregnancy at that age? According to Medline Plus, the younger a mother is below age 20, the greater the risk of her infant dying during the first year of life and infants born to teens are 2 - 6 times more likely to have low birth weight than those born to mothers age 20 or older. Even if a teen could later put the baby up for adoption, the baby would have already been exposed to dangerous conditions. Also, going back to being a pregnant 12 year old, how would that pregnancy affect your future? According to Medline Plus, teen mothers are about 2 years behind their age group in completing their education and women who have a baby during their teen years are more likely to live in poverty. There are woman out there who are put in situations such as rape, incest, or abuse and having a baby can disrupt their whole lives. http://www.rainn.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov...2. It is not the job of the government to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Whatever circumstance a women is in, the government has no way of knowing. Even if abortion was made against the law unless subject to rape, incest, etc, how can the government enforce that rule? If a woman really wanted to get an abortion, she can easily lie to get it. Also, this country prides itself on the freedom of choice, so why is the choice of women being taken away? Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, it is her decision and it will affect her life. Abortion is no easy task, it is very emotional and personal to the woman and her family. If a woman is in a situation where she has to consider having an abortion, she needs to figure that out by herself or with her close family. The government should not be able to weigh in on a decision that personal. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment. Imagine that you are a woman in an abusive relationship. You have no freedom or choice in your household and is physically and mentally abused often. What if you had gotten pregnant? Do you think you live in an environment ideal for raising a child? If my opponent had what he wanted, abortion would be illegal, and for this particular woman, adoption is not an option. Does this child deserve to grow up in such a dangerous environment? Do you think his/her life will be a good one? If a woman is in a situation that she knows is not good for a child, isn’t it her responsibility to terminate the pregnancy? Shouldn’t she at least have the choice to terminate the pregnancy? Though it is hard to picture this, there are women out there in these types of circumstances and worse. My opponent could argue the women could always find help, but does he know how dire her situation is? Does he have any way of proving that every single woman out there has a clear path to safety? According to the Center for Disease Control, at least 4 to 8 percent of pregnant women—that's over 300,000 per year—report suffering abuse during pregnancy. Also, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women between 15 and 44 and is estimated to be responsible for 20 to 25 percent of all hospital emergency room visits by women. 300,000 women a year are abused while pregnant, and on top of this, my opponent believes they shouldn't have the choice to end the pregnancy? http://www.womensweb.ca... In conclusion, I believe abortion should be legal because some women have certain circumstances, it is not the responsibility of the government, and the baby could be put in a bad situation. When a baby is born, it is completely at the mercy of its caregivers. A child is a living thing, a life, and the parents must take the initiative to protect it, at whatever cost.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion is a complex issue with strong emotions on both sides. Some argue that abortion is wrong, but let's consider the perspective that it's a woman's right to choose. If a woman makes the decision to have an abortion for any reason, she should not be shamed or made to feel like an outcast. While it's true that women should be responsible and use birth control, sometimes it fails, condoms can tear, and people can have moments of weakness leading to unprotected sex. If a woman, especially a young one like a teenager or someone financially unstable, becomes pregnant, she may seek an abortion. For many women, this seems like the only viable option. Adoption is an alternative, but then foster homes would be filled with unwanted children who would bounce from home to home. What kind of life is that for a child? A woman who has an abortion doesn't have to go through the emotional turmoil of carrying a baby for nine months and then watching it go to someone else.

Scientifically, a fetus or embryo is not a baby, it is not yet a living, breathing human being. It's simply a mass of cells that will develop into a baby at a later stage. This is why late-term abortions, unless for medical reasons, are often opposed. At an early stage, it's just a mass of cells, indistinguishable from a tadpole. The only difference is that one will grow to be a frog, and one will become a baby. In cases of rape, we must ask ourselves if a woman should be forced to carry the baby of her rapist. While some may argue that the baby is innocent, the mother is already going through emotional and psychological pain due to the rape. Do we really want to subject her to the emotional turmoil of carrying and raising a child she didn't ask for? What if the child has a genetic disorder or a serious health condition, would you choose to bring that child into the world knowing the challenges they will face?

To understand abortion, one must ask themselves these questions and try to empathize with someone else's situation. If people didn't have so many children they couldn't afford, we wouldn't have a population crisis, and people wouldn't live in extreme poverty. While birth control would help, it's harder to access in third-world countries, and there are cultural and religious barriers to its use. In the Western world, there seems to be a stigma associated with birth control, especially among Catholics who still want to follow the doctrine of banning it. However,

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...

I am Justin. I am against abortion. I believe it is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. I will not mince words, nor will I worry about offending anyone, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint. Opening Statement:I believe, personally, that it abortion should not only be illegal, but it should be unthinkable. Women are not entitle to make decisions that endanger other humans' lives. The babies that are destroyed through abortion have the same Constitutional rights as the mother. If a woman chose to have sex, then she, without a doubt, has the responsibility to give birth to the child, no matter the pain or discomfort caused her. If a woman is raped, then I believe she should have the child as well, so long as it's not life threatening. There are many options for putting a child up for adoption, so the child after birth does not have to influence the mother's lifestyle. If a mother is raped, and will not survive giving birth to the child, I believe the mother is morally obligated to have the child, but should not be legally obligated. However, I do not believe that this, almost invisibly small, percentage of women justify making all abortions legal. Thank you. On to round 2.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Abortion, though quite an unpleasant idea, is a necessary one. We all have things we don't like to do but must and abortion happens to fall in with these things. Abortion signifies the only right that an unwilling mother has to her own life. Teenagers, rape victims etc... do not want to hang on to the memory of something stupid and horrible. Through abortion, unwilling mothers can have another shot at their own life. Something that they are in charge of and asked for. They should not be held responsible for something that was outside their control; something that could possibly damage the rest of their life.

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.

How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the "maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex."I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the "murder" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.

Response Point 1: Correct. People should not have pregnancies that they do not plan to have or keep (intended or uninteded pregnancy). But this unfortunate fact will never be suppressed (meaning that millions of people per year will continue to have sex that may result in an unintended pregnancy). Thus, abortion is still necessary. Response Point 2: Exactly. Thank you for proving my point that if abortion was made illegal, than women are going to get abortions anyhow, and a lot of women have them homemade (to use your term), and most of those are unsafe. Response Point 3: There is no right to live. Being able to live is a privilege provided by God. But to not go off on a tangent, I would like for you to state me the passage that either says those words verbatim (preferably), or something of the same effect. Response Point 4: I will cover post-abortion stress in one of my attack points. Response Point 5: Do you really believe Lordknukle? He has some extremely weird beliefs. Response Point 6: Most women who abort are poor. If the baby was born into this surrounding, the baby would be most likely poor his or her whole childhood, and most likely, the rest of his or her life, and these surroundings greatly increase the chance that he or she commits one murder or is murdered. The child would be better off not being born. I would not want to live in or experience those types of surroundings. Would you? Response Point 7: The matter of when a fetus is of one's own opinion. Some say when the fetus's heart first beats, or when the fetus can start breathing, or at conception, or when a fetus can feel pain, or when a fetus can survive on it's own, or at birth. There is no strong, solid evidence of when a baby is born, and most of the accepted alive dates (like when a fetus can survive on it's own, or when the fetus can feel pain) have no set date, but are still a matter of scientific study not proven yet. You cannot prove that a fetus is alive when it's heart first beats. Response Point 8: Most of these famous people did not live in poor surroundings, or where abortion was a major opinion for the child's mother (I am not saying that all famous people do not fit this category because some do). Attack Point 1: "In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone": http://socialistworker.org.... This quote alone sums up what it was like for the thousands of women who died at the hands of untrained specialists. Attack Point 2: Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health.": http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org.... Attack Point 3: "Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)" "Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level": http://www.guttmacher.org.... Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance? Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born. Attack Point 4: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess. Attack Point 5: "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City": http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law. Attack Point 6: This is the connection between abortion and mental illness I promised. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... http://www.guardian.co.uk....... This source claims that the unwanted pregnancy is the cause of mental illness, not the abortion itself. http://feministing.com....... This source cites at least three studies denying the claim. I know you stated the connection of post abortion stress. Here is a quote that I think may sum this part of the argument up in my favor: "This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; A prior history of mental health problems; Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it.":http://www.apa.org...... So the abortion did not cause the mental illness, rather, it was the unwanted pregnancy. If the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy, then there would be even worse post-pregnancy stress. Get the connection? Attack Point 7: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... This conclusion again states that if the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy (or not allow her to abort), than the women is at an increased chance for breast cancer. Another point is the if you prohibit abortion, you would have to prohibit pregnancy before that because the pregnancy itself causes mental illness and breast cancer. ==OFR== I have essentially crushed the pro-Life argument.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The termination of a pregnancy
The act of abortion robs a fetus of its potential to experience a full human life and all its future possibilities:

This maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original document while preserving its relationship to the question. The document is still discussing the implications of abortion, specifically how it affects the potential future of the fetus. The rephrased document uses different words and sentence structure, but the meaning is preserved.

My stance is that all abortions during the first trimester should be legal.

Depending on the stage, a "fetus" can be removed as just a few cells. I don't think that a cluster of cells feel pain. Yes, it might hurt the fetus if it is a later stage, but would in some cases save it from months or years or torture. One example: A woman is given an ultrasound and finds that her baby has a horrible disease that will cause it to go through months or years of pain depending on how long it lives. Think of children that have such severe mental or physical disabilities that they would never aspire to anything in live. It is the merciful thing to abort them, Example 2: A woman is raped, and finds out she is pregnant. What if she is also young? 17? 16? younger? Should she really have to be harassed for 9 months and then have to give birth and raise a child that has an unknown father or the father is in jail,not supporting it? That's not fair to the mother, child, or family. There is also the Donahue-Levitt hypothesis, a theory that shows that legalised abortion is linked to lower crime rates. explained here:http://en.wikipedia.org...

Abortion is not immoral and it should be legal.

If a mother is going to end up struggling in life further because of having a baby well then too bad for her. She should have put some thought into it before she decided to have sexual intercourse with her husband or some random dude that would eventually lead to her being pregnant. A woman should have sense enough to know that if she's going to end up having a hard time in life that she doesn't need to have a baby ever or until she gets her life together. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to have a baby if she won't be able to care for it unless of course she has been raped by some selfish guy who cares only about pleasuring himself regardless of how the woman could be effected. Therefore I will rest my case on the fact that Abortion should only be allowed if the woman has been raped or if the pregnancy is endangering the child and its mother's life because as far as i'm concerned Abortion is murder if it isn't related to these two circumstances.

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.

On the debate topic "abortion", I will provide reasons in favor of it based on how it impacts society and individuals. I will not assert or continue any debate about what one personally should feel about the act of abortion in-and-of-itself. I personally don't like it, choose not to do it, but must conclude the option is better supported than not allowed. In my argument I will be making reference to a number of different kinds of abortions, though I am only making an argument in favor of "safe access to legal professional abortion". a"bor"tion noun 1. Also called voluntary abortion. The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months. 3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def 1 ) . 4. an immature and nonviable fetus. To start my argument, I would like to invoke what I will argue are important factors in deciding whether abortion is acceptable on the terms I agreed to above. Than I will break down the arguments for each factor. 1) Importance of group sustainability 2) Human rights 3) Societal and individual health 4) Reduction in criminal behavior **Importance of group sustainability** Here I am making the argument that abortion, natural and/or assisted, is an integral part of group sustainability. Basic "group sustainability argument" goes as follows: 1. A population can only sustain a certain amount of people based on the groups ability to also sustain "access" to food/water resources and space for the individuals to live. (Please answer YES or NO) 2. If there are more people than what can be provided for, some portion will suffer and die. (YES or NO) 3. Thus we can conclude that it is always in our best interest to keep open options for the population's control, in order to balance our sustainability. (YES or NO) Conclusion: Abortion is favored Conclusion is elaborated on: to reduce the amount of suffering and needless death of those brought into the world, only to suffer and die, should constitute a good thing; for it adds to the well-being of the people capable of continuing existence. Any life which comes into this world does not only impact it's own existence, but others, sometimes a few, sometimes many. The pregnancy can severely inhibit (circumstantially dependent) the mother's ability to sustain other areas of her life (health / opportunity), which in turn can impact other possible children already born and cared for, and/or future children yet to come. The possible resources and energy used to sustain that life, that will inevitably die, is in some sense a wasted expense that serves no one other than a misguided and seemingly cruel mind, because it needlessly holds onto the idea that this person must live despite its destined desolation. Even worse is when abortion is railed against by those whom proclaim they are fighting for a possible life they themselves are not willing to take care of, and will soon as possible turn a blind eye to the forthcoming, REAL suffering of lives effected by "their choices". This moves me directly to the next part of my argument. **Human rights** Here I will make the argument that the options of abortion is foremost the right of the person in which the possible life will be sustained. Those rights include: first this person's right to control their bodily functions in such a way that they can be considered to have aspirations to full participation, equal membership and active involvement in society. Without the right of reproductive choice, all other human rights: civil and political, economic and social, have only limited power to advance the well-being of the person. 1. The person for which abortion is not an option must, by virtue of circumstance, be unable to participate as an equal and active member of society. (YES or NO) 2. The option for safe access to abortion allows the person the opportunity to participate as an equal and active member of society. (YES or NO) 3. Thus we can conclude that the option to alleviate such disability is good; it allows for the person to maintain their human rights. This is good for the individual and society. Conclusion: Abortion is favored Conclusion is elaborated on: It can be further demonstrated by historical standards of human relations that, because of the person who bares the child, they, without abortion options, are forced to be dependent on others for well-being (with but few exceptions). By the words of Charlotte Perkins Gilman, " Wealth, power, social distinction, fame "not only these, but home and happiness, reputation, ease and pleasure, her bread and butter, --all, must come to her through a small gold ring". .. . I would add state assistance(within certain countries); which is a whole other issue, but very contingent to the circumstances involved here. Although, Gilman was speaking about the choices available to women at the time, abortion plays a critical role in how women can combat the subservient and dependent life style, and maintain their independence and thus her human rights. I remind us of what Margaret Sanger wrote: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother. " **Societal and individual health** Here I will make the argument that the health of society and the individual is better sustained with safe access to legal professional abortion. 1. Within society and/or with an individual trying to survive, abortion will happen. (YES or NO) 2. If no safe access to abortion is available, the means to accomplish the abortion are dangerous and lead to unsafe choices. The likelihood of the individual developing damaging health consequences (physically and mentally) and even contingent agents not directly involved in the abortion, can be great (YES or NO) 3. Legal and regulated safe access to professional abortion will provide better control for the health of the people. Conclusion: Abortion is favored Conclusion is elaborated on: as with most actions, the lack of action still has consequences. Here an argument is made that the results of not acting to provide safe access to abortion only increases the harm done. The fact that you or I don't like abortion does not reduce the fact that it will be done, and if we truly do care about the well-being of people, we will make the hard choice to allow safe access to professional abortions. **Reduction in criminal behavior** Here I will make the argument that allowing safe access to professional abortion reduces the criminal behavior involved in illegal abortion, including but not limited to, unregulated procedures: 1. Illegal abortions are unregulated, unprofessional, and can include a number of other illegal activities. (YES or NO) 2. Legal abortion can be regulated, with properly educated professionals, and will provide records of all actions involved in procedures needed to accomplish the task. 3. Legal safe access to professional abortion will reduce a large number of criminal activities that otherwise would not take place. Conclusion: Abortion is favored Conclusion is elaborated on: safe access to professional abortion reduces the criminal behavior involved in illegal abortion, including but not limited to, unregulated procedures: equipment used, location, and the number of criminal activities required to get access to drugs, etc. .. Also included are the lack of professional support with access to accurate and up-to-date information about all the things involved in abortion, i. e. history, modern understanding of the process, physiological analysis, physical exams before and after the procedure. I would like to add the form of payment, as it will be under the table and lacking any records of responsibility. Sources will be included in next round. No Room.

My opponent's arguments almost invariably rely on the premise that abortion is not homicide - or that foetuses have no right to life. Obviously if this premise were true then all of Pro's arguments would be be perfectly correct. If we only consider the welfare of the mother then it is clear that we ought to allow her to abort safely and easily. However if the premise is false, and abortion is indeed homicide, then my opponent is guilty of making false syllogisms. Note that I will be arguing that abortion should not be legal in all cases apart from cases where the mother would be under severe physical risk if she were to continue the pregnancy. Why abortion is homicide P1: Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus by another, P2: Homicide is the killing of one human being by another, (1) P3: A human foetus is a human being, C: Abortion is homicide Homicide is illegal (apart from justified homicide, but abortion does not fall under this bracket), and so if abortion is homicide, then it logically follows that abortion should also be illegal. I do not know which (if any) of my premises my opponent disputes, so I will wait until he/she voices her objections. Response to Pro My opponent's main argument is that 'Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion'. However, this is a nonsensical argument to use in opposition to outlawing abortion. We outlaw actions because they are immoral (in general), irrespective of whether outlawing the action would actually stop the action. For example, outlawing theft does not stop theft, but it is non sequitur to suppose that this is any reason to legalise theft. The same applies to murder, slavery, torture and many other horrible things. Pro also seems to have forgotten the fact that pregnant women choose to have an illegal abortion, it's not as if they are forced into it against their will (even in cases of this, the problem to be dealt with is to punish the person who forces the woman to abort, not to legalise abortion). Therefore, as women choose to have an illegal abortion, knowing that it is a dangerous procedure, they are willingly putting themselves in danger and therefore they are partially culpable. The woman can simply choose to not have an abortion. Ultimately, abortion is not a necessity. My opponent raises the problem of pregnancies caused by rape, and goes on to liken it to a forced organ donation. Yet this is a poor analogy for two reasons: 1. There is an unique obligation in society for parents to protect their children, yet there is no obligation to protect other people. If we change the analogy to a scenario where a young child will die if his mother does not donate a kidney to him, it would be abhorrent for the mother to then refuse to do so. 2. Refusing to donate a kidney to someone who needs it in order to live is different to directly killing someone. The former is just letting someone die naturally, whereas the latter is the direct and deliberate murder of someone. Abortion is the direct killing of the foetus, whereas refusing to donate a kidney is letting someone die naturally. Pro goes on to say that legal abortion is necessary to allow medically necessary abortions (which I take to mean cases where the abortion is to save the mother's life). Apart from the fact that it is perfectly possible to allow medically necessary abortions and not abortions in other circumstances, only 0.00014% (2) of abortions in the past ten years in the UK have been to save the mothers life. It is absurd to suggest that we should make the 99.99986% other abortions legal for such a negligible minority of cases, especially considering then in every single one of these cases a human life is destroyed unjustly. The last argument presented is that legal abortion is a relatively safe procedure. Yet this only considers the safety of the mother, it is the most unsafe procedure possible for the foetus. Furthermore, just because something is safe it does not mean that it should be legal. Tax avoidance is safe, but it does not follow that tax avoidance should be legal. I will now pass the debate over to Pro. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) https://www.gov.uk...

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...

I accept. I will be arguing that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. I also want to state that although I am taking the pro side and this debate is called "Abortion," I am not "pro-abortion." I am pro-choice. Therefore, I am not going to argue about whether or not women should get abortions, but whether or not they should be allowed to get abortions.

A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. Rules: No new arguments in last round. (R4)