Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Over-the-Counter?

U.S. schools should implement comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of solely promoting abstinence.

Counterarguments: You stated, “With effective sex education, the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can be significantly reduced, leading to better sexual health.” However, this claim lacks substantial evidence. You merely provided statistics on young people engaging in sexual activity but failed to establish a correlation between sex education and safe sexual practices. Moreover, your assertion that “76.7% of teenagers did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera during their last sexual encounter, and over half a million unplanned pregnancies occur among teens annually… We can't control whether teenagers have sex, but we can ensure they have the knowledge to prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancies” is also an unsupported assumption. Where is the study that validates this claim? All you have presented are unfounded assumptions or claims without adequate evidence.

Points: Various groups across the U.S. are advocating for abstinence-only sex education in schools. These include Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International. Advocates of abstinence-only education argue that premarital sex is inappropriate or immoral, and abstinence is the only guaranteed method to prevent pregnancy and STIs. They also emphasize that condoms are not entirely effective in preventing pregnancy or STIs, and sexual activity outside of marriage can have serious, debilitating, and sometimes fatal consequences. Additionally, they fear that teaching about sex, contraception, and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people. These advocates credit the decline in teenage pregnancy to the promotion of the abstinence-only message.

An article on the Concerned Women for America website states, “This is not merely a moral issue, but a matter of public health. The problems plaguing our country, such as AIDS, illegitimate births, poverty, increasing crime, and the breakdown of the nuclear family, can all be attributed to the harmful effects of a public policy that condones sex without love or responsibility. … Research clearly shows that America's problem is not a lack of knowledge about sex, but a lack of values.” Abstinence-only proponents point to studies suggesting that the abstinence-only education message has significantly contributed to the decline in adolescent sexual activity and related negative health outcomes over the past decade. One study asserts that “abstinence and reduced sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible

The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.

I am hoping that this will turn out to be a very good debate. Contention 1: A fetus and Personhood. I will begin by first addressing the personhood of the unborn fetus. Now, my opponent is more then likely state that a fetus is a human and therefore, has the right to life and I would agree with him. A fetus is clearly a member of the biological species Homo Sapiens. However, just being human does not intell that one should automaditcally gets rights. I will argue that 'persons' are the ones who are the ones who should be given rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language. This definition includes no animals. All of the said requirements for personhood are far more valuable in determining personhood then apindages. A fetus has none of these, thus it can not be treated like you and I. It can not be treated as the same as a baby that is newly born because a baby has the capabily to do these things and it has the brain capacity to be an individual and form a semi-complex thought. So, since a fetus is not a person then it has no serious right to life. Contention 2: Self-Ownership Everyone has self-ownership. To deny it would be to deny your selves, and neither I or my opponent would be in this debate because we would most likely be doing whatever our government told us to do. So with this stated, women have complete dominion over their body's. If something is wrong with it then they have the right to fix it, if they want to make it better or worse in their eyes then that is their choice, and furthermore, if a fetus forms there without their permission then they have the choice on whether or not she is wants to let it stay there whether it be a human/person or not. Despite whatever "right to life" "pro-lifers" may claim it possesses, it has not right to be where it is unwelcomed and invited. Fetus's are not intitled to women's bodies, they do not own women's bodies, and neither do governments. Contention 3: Overpopulation I will start out my last contention with a quote by Christ Hedges who is a former "New York Times" correspondent and author of the article "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction". In it he writes: "All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth," Hedges wrote. "By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared. " [1] Now, I am sure that not to many people are actually aware of the population crises in America or the world for that matter, but in spite of the small amounts of media and news coverage the threat is very real. At our current birth rate by the year 2050 the Earth's population will be between 8 million people to 10 million people[1]. The U. S. has nearly quadrupled the number of people within its boundaries in the past century; if our population multiplies by that same amount within the coming century we will hold over one billion people. There are two factors that play a part in this and I will get to my point with this soon after. 1. The first being fertility rates, the U. S. has a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman. the U. S. ’s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom’s fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3. )[2].2. And the next is immegration. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U. S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U. S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990 [2]. The following graphs further deminstrates the rapid growth in population in the U. S. U. S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Year Projected population Percent changefrom population in2000 2010 310,233,000 10% 2020 341,387,000 21% 2030 373,504,000 32% 2040 405,655,000 44% 2050 439,010,000 55% Now immagine an overpopulated disaster in the U. S. Imagine lands that once could be enjoyed for their natural beauty are now concrete jungles, our country's children attend schools that are overloaded and lack the teacher to student interaction we once had, social infrastructures and systems are overloaded, natural resources are being depleted, and our environment is being tasked beyond its limits. Abortions, though not final solution to this problem can lower the birth rate so we can find a solution to it. That is all for now, I thank the people who read this. I will now await my opponent's argument. Solutions[1]. http://rense.com......[2]http://www.npg.org......

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

I will offer my Point of View on this Issue and then I will respond to your Points in the Next Round. It is the View of the CON aka Me that Crisis Pregnancy Centers should not be regulated as Healthcare Providers. Government does not have the Power to regulate Faith Based Enterprises. Doing so would violate the First Amendment Right to Practice One's Religion Freely without any Obstacle. For sure Abortion is a Controversial Issue, and one could debate it for days and days. BUT.....It doesn't mean that the Government could overextend it's Reach. Since Crisis Pregnancy Clinics are Non Profit and Faith Based, The Government can not regulate it the same as A Planned Parenthood Center. The Government can not regulate Non Commercial Speech. And these Crisis Clinics are NonCommercial. They are NONPROFIT. A Similar Situation happened around 2 Years ago. https://www.washingtontimes.com... The ACLU filed a Lawsuit forcing a Catholic Hospital to provide Abortions. The Federal Court shot it down..... the Government can't regulate a Religious Based Group and force it to provide the type of Services that would Violate their Beliefs.

Pro has completely failed to support their conclusion that a woman shouldn't always have the right to an abortion. Pro never address' when it is too late to have an abortion, why women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions later in their pregnancies, and under what circumstances a woman should or should not have the right to a late abortion. I will now restate the reasons why I think that women should be allowed to have later abortions. Firstly, I accept that a fetus has human rights. However, I do not accept that a fetus has rights to someone else body. A drunk driver can not be forced to donate a kidney or lung to a victim - and a drunk driver is guilty of a crime. Women should not be forced to give up access to their body parts - and they haven't committed a crime. Second, an abortion after 22 weeks becomes a late termination and the child usually survives outside of the mothers womb on life support. This means that late term abortions result in the survival of the child. Telling woman they have to have abortions early on could well result in more fetus' being killed because woman would be having their abortions before the 22 week marker. And life support would not be an option. Also, with babies born before 26 weeks over 80% will make it to adult hood. This alone should be a good enough reason to keep later abortions. Lastly, studies have consistently shown that when women have abortion rights there is considerably less infanticide, teen age drug use, teen age arrest rates, and teen age childbearing. All of them go down. These are positive effects on society. Banning abortions, even in later stages, would have negative and far reaching repercussions. In closing, I would urge the person who is arguing Pro to read up on the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy. Your statement that this is a philosophical argument and therefore you 'don't have to provide facts / only argue logic' is not valid for this debate. Restricting woman's abortion rights is what's called an A-Posteriori issue - it exists in the real world and needs to be addressed by empirical information. It is not an esoteric discussion that can only be addressed by analytic distinctions. I think half an hour spent learning the difference between the two would be of great value to you and would go a long ways to helping you formulate arguments in your future debates. Thanks for the challenge, Codedlogic

1st I agree with your definitions and terms. I will be attacking your sub points then your overall contentions. subpoint 1a- yes, they do. But that doesnt mean it is ok. Teens also have bad driving habits, and are likely to try drugs as well. You are asserting that since teens are going to do it, that means we should simply encourage it. This is like a parent who gives their kid what they want to shut them up. Rather than teach, we cave. There are benfits to abstinence, but instead we reason that since they are gonna do it anyway, why bother? Let's take the driving example. since kids are going to speed anyway, why tell them not too? Just teach them how to run redlights and cut people off rather than tell them not to. subpoint 1b- SO? We teach kids to do what they know is right rather than what everyone says. Peer Pressure doesn't make it ok. Kids also face preesure to join gangs and smoke crack, but tht doesn't mean we ought to accomodate it. Peer pressure just gives them a lame, worn out excuse to break moral code. CONTENTION 1: While you will never eradicate teen sex, this doesnt mean we must accomadate teen sex. Teens are impulsive, and no education will stop them. Again, its like saying that since we will never eradicate bad teenage driving, we should simply teach them how to do it right. There are advantages to abstinence, so it is logical to promote them over allowing delinquent activity. CONTENTION 2 (I found your subpoints too similar to attack individually, so I will only hit the cointention.): I know of one contraceptive that works all the time, without fail, 100%. Its called...ABSTINENCE. If you know of this, you will never have problems with HIV, AIDS, or pregnancy. You have based this on the idea that since all teens will have sex, then you cannot expect abstinence. I am 17, and I have refrained from such activity. I know several people at my school who have also. Despite your claims, sexual urges and desiures can be restrained. Thus, teaching teens to control their hormones are more fruitful than simply allowing them to rage on. subpoint 3a- Of course teens are more accepting of this: it feeds their ego. It doesn't explain that abstinence has its own benefits, and that it is in fact more effective than contraception. Teens do no like being told they are wrong, but sometimes, they are. Appeasment is a dangerous philosophy. subpoint 3b- This is somewhat insulting. Someone preffering abstinence doesn't make them unintelligent, it just doesn't make them liberal. A different view point than your own is not incompetent CONTENTION 3: This education is more effective at appeasing hormonal teens than abstinence only. And this may be why abstinence only inspires sex itself, by putting teens in a defensive position. but abstinence only doesnt teach necessarily that sexual desire is wrong, rather that it is not insurmountable. The problem is with the teens themselves, and not the education. We ought not compromise morality in the name of efficency. I want to add, that i hope i didn't come off as condescending. I fear I may have portrayed you as an immoral weakling, which was not my intention in any way. If you felt I treated you this way, I am deeply regretful of that and apologize greatly. That said, good luck!

My opponent has failed to define terms and present me with arguments to refute, so I will bring up the first points in this match. This is a topic based largely on common sense. Assertion 1: All drugs are bad. Reasoning: Isn't this obvious? Clearly, my opponent has not reaserched well enough to debate this on solid ground. Marijuana is dangerous. So is the other drugs. An overdose of Marijuana can kill you, as shown by an incdent when a mother baked marijuana into cookies that a five year old girl ate. She ended up eating over a pound. Addiction to marijuana over a long time an lead to lung or throat cancer. Evidence: SF gate, Growing up a Teen in America Assertion 2: The drug was sold legally online. Reasoning: The kids had access to it. It was online, and it wasn't even illegel. You have not brought up the fact that we should just ban meow altogether. Then this incident wouldn't have happened. Evidence: Daily Mail Assertion 3: Changing the law will not have much effect. Reasoning: Many teenagers still take drugs. They still do it, even though the law forbids them to. How do we know that meow usage will not be continued? Allowing marijuana is simply unhealthy for them. It makes them addicted, crazed, and makes them emotionally unstable. Evidence: The Daily Life magazine To top it off, all drugs are bad. Allowing any type of drug won't help the situation. Although drugs are outlawed, many still use them, and I wait for my opponent's rebuttal.

My opponent should’ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a ‘drug’, which eliminates the idea for it to get ’banned’ or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn’t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone’s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of ‘drugs’. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste ‘freedom’, which could eventually kill them. Well, here’s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher’s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person’s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.

I personally know him, and I assure you, this will be a great debate. Contention One: Doctors A. Doctor's simply can't perscribe anti-depressants to whoever walks in the door. Just think about it. Imagine you're infected with the H1N1 influenza and you don't know it yet. You're sick enough to barely keep it together, and your insurance only covers for you to see a doctor at a local place before you can see anyone else. Surprisingly, you walk in, and the place is packed. Why is this scenario possible? This, ladies and gentlemen, is the result in passing my opponent's plan. If the general public knew that doctors will hand out free anti-depressants like free candy to teenagers, anyone could (and would) go seek medical help after a break up of three weeks in middle school. My response? Give me a break. B. Teenagers' Health Do you ever watch a commerical that tells the listener not to take the pill or medicine unless they're over 18 years old? There's a reason for that. My first source comes straight from my family myself. It's happend twice. Someone under 18 years old tried to take an anti-depressant, and she retrogressed into attempted suicide. You just can't give these things to adolescents. My second source is (. http://www.articlesbase.com... #). They might help teenagers, but parents aren't going to want to risk their children killing themselves over them getting over depression. Contention Two: "Solve" A. I'm sorry, but where are these so called "suicide centers". There's the suicide hotline which is (1800-suicide). It's free, so there's your number two. We don't need to hire counselors at the schools. The ones hired are already taught how to deal with this situation anyway. B. Honestly? Who wants to be put on anti-depressants unless you're in dire need? You're not yourself anymore, and when you're not yourself, you've reached a fate worse than death. Thank you everyone. Please vote con. :) -bexxx

I am FOR Abortion. Abortion should be legal at all points during pregnancy. I believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with HER body. A fetus is not a human being when it is conceived; I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb and enters the world. Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet! Abortion should be legal in every case, such as when having the baby will kill the mother, or even if the baby is just an inconvenience and the mother does not want it. Murder is killing anyone from the day they LEAVE THE WOMB to the day they die. Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!


Question: Should Contraceptive Pills Be Accessible Without Prescription?

Emergency contraceptive pills can pose significant health risks, including adverse side effects like nausea, vomiting, infertility, breast tenderness, ectopic pregnancy, and the potential for blood clots. Furthermore, there is a lack of comprehensive long-term research to determine if these high-dose chemical exposures could lead to permanent health issues or increase the risk of developing serious conditions such as cancer in women.

I apologise to my opponent for the delay in getting this up, and for the abbreviated nature of this argument. Recently, my country legalised medicinal cannabis use (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since then, we haven't had any significant cases of abuse. Our insurance costs have not skyrocketed, and niether have our taxes. We are not a destination for drug tourism, and we have not undermined our anti-cannabis stance in wider society. When people take medicinal cannabis, their doctors first assess their condition. The doctor's "do no harm" mantra prohibits them from proscribing anything that is significantly harmful for the patient. Obviously, most if not all medicines have side effects, but we allow doctors to assess what will work best for the patient because they - not the government - are the ones who know the medicine best. Ultimately we leave the decision down to the patient when a range of options are available for the same reason. To presume that some government buraeucrats have a better understanding of each patient's individual condition (if you will excuse my RoyLatham-esque expression), and thus what treatments should be available, is to undermine the entire healthcare system. Healthcare is a personal thing. Our right to life confers a responsibility for it, and our responsibility for our life empowers us to choose what medicine we take. We make exceptions in various circumstances - for young children, for instance, and for mentally impaired people who cannot understand what is involved with these decisions - but in general the rule is that illness does not rob us of our general autonomy, but rather extends it. It allows us access to public facilities, such as hospitals, just as it opens up access to prescription drugs, for the simple reason that we cannot make a choice when certain choices are prohibited. As a principle, we feel it is entirely consistant with the role of the healthcare system to legalise cannabis. You can't make a full medical choice when certain medical options, endorsed by many scientists globally, are not available to you. For instance, cannabis causes pain relief. It would be a mistake to assume that cannabis is not the right pain reliever for anybody. That's why the choice must be available, in these kinds of difficult medical situations, not narrowed down to a few government-approved alternatives. I personally do not believe there is any evidence cannabis cures anything, or has any helpful effect beyond suppression of symptoms (such as pain). However, since doctors will not have the prescribed the medicine in any situation where it would be harmful, the cannabis would never be used when it is harmful to the patient's health. Since a person who's in hospital all the time undergoing chemo is not exactly going to be drug driving or doing property crime, there's no harm to the public either. Furthermore, research on cannabis is still ongoing. Perhaps it has some helpful effect that science has not yet isolated. It must be the patient, informed by the advice of their medical professional, who makes that decision, not me, because I have no responsibility for their health. My contention is that it should be on the basis of harms to the patient, not the benefits to the patient, that medicine is administered. We already accept the principal that the relative value of benefits must be decided by the patient because we allow patients to refuse treatment. Since cannabis has no real harms when administered in the right way under proper, doctor-specified and recommended conditions, as and when appropriate, there is nothing wrong with medicinal cannabis legalisation. We do not ban the use of placebos if patients want to take them voluntarily. Patients can, if they so wish, hug a teddy bear instead of undergoing chemotherapy and pray to God to remove the desease. These are examples of placebos, and they confer no benefits, nor do they have any particular harms. Cannabis can, under most circumstances, fall in the same category. In the remainder of circumstances, doctors will intervene. As can be shown with countries where it has been legalised, such as New Zealand, this does not translate into a broader problem for society. If you don't accept medicinal marijuana, then as a principle, you deny patient autonomy. You limit the scope of healthcare. But what is of greater value than human life? Even if cannabis has few, if any, beneficial effects, that is no grounds for banning it as a choice. That is why we need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use.

I would like to point out that my competitor has negated her statement of "Do you think sex during pregnancy could harm your baby?" with " If your changing mood and changing body permits you, then it is always safe." Pro is right, but at the same time providing me with an invalid argument. Voters please take notice.

I will reply briefly to Pro's comments. I am aware of the awful nature of abortion (though some pro-choice advocates argue that there is nothing bad about abortion). Germaine Greer is simply mistaken about the nature of relationships. Certainly some relations are of a coercive nature, but not all (or even most) of them. Additionally, even if a woman is "coerced" into having relations (which is a very dubious statement), she still bears moral culpability for the child she was instrumental in conceiving. The real solution is to raise boys to be better men and treat women with respect, not to kill a living human being that she conceives. My statement that women should be prevented from having abortions is not a horrible statement (and indeed, Pro has decided to attack a strawman). Women have control over their bodies, but no one has absolute right over their bodies. Pro-choice philosopher Louis Pojman provides an example: "Consider 500-pound Fat Fred who decides to sit down, but your money-packed wallet happens to be directly on the spot where he sits. You request him to move his body so that you can get your wallet, but he refuses, claiming that he has an absolute right to do with his body what he wills. " [1] No one has an absolute right to bodily integrity, and if the unborn are valuable human beings (as we are), then prevented an abortion is not attempting to control womens' bodies, it is preventing abortionists and women from murdering the most vulnerable members of our species. I will now respond to Pro's criticisms of my argument. P1 -- The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. Pro mentions that from the sixth month (it's actually a couple of weeks before the sixth month) the unborn are not able to live independently. But he doesn't support his contention as to why this is a morally relevant reason to allow us to kill them. Until he supports this contention, it should be regarded as a baseless assertion, nothing more. The unborn is the same entity from fertilization past viability past birth, so there is no reason to grant the unborn rights at viability and not before. Abortion, medically, is merely the separation of the unborn from the woman. However, medical methods to perform this procedure are not mere separations, it is direct killing -- through dismemberment, poisoning, etc. As Frank Beckwith writes, "euphemistically calling abortion the withholding of support makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen. " [2]P2 -- Killing human beings is [prima facie] immoral. Point taken in regards to certain types of killing. I have amended my statement to read that killing humans is prima facie immoral. It is not always wrong to kill, especially in self-defense. While there is some privacy involved in moral decisions, if abortion kills an innocent human being then it can't be justified in the name of privacy, any more than child abuse or spousal abuse could be justified by claiming that it was done in the privacy of their own home/bedroom. P3 -- Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). Immorality is not subjective. When I say abortion is wrong, I am not saying "I dislike abortion" like I dislike guacamole. I am saying that it is wrong for all people, at all times (this would include men, if they had the capacity to become pregnant). If Pro can say that murder is wrong (as he seemed to have conceded in his critique of my second premise), then he could admit that if abortion were murder, it would also be objectively wrong. And by "stand against," I merely mean "work toward the ending of the practice. " I do not condone abortion-related violence from the pro-choice or the pro-life side. Slavery was once legal in the United States. It is now illegal. If morality were merely subjective, then slavery was a moral practice, and the abolitionists who opposed it were moral monsters, not heroes. I am sure Pro would also concede that slavery was immoral, even when it was legal (at least, I hope he would). As such, all human beings are deserving of dignity. What is legal is not always moral, and what is moral is not always legal. It is not right to mistreat women, even if it is legal to do so. In the example from Bangladesh, I would say that no, it would be wrong for them to whack any "offending women. " I would hope Pro would agree. I would also hope Pro would agree it would be wrong of them to do so, even if it is legal for them to do so. But moral relativism would dictate that it is moral for some men to abuse women. Civilized countries hold to the same moral standard, e. g. that murder is wrong and is illegal. They may disagree on what constitutes murder, but they still hold "murder is wrong" to be an objective moral standard. The pro-life position makes a case that abortion is immoral and should be illegal (since murder is illegal). If this is true, then pro-life advocates are well within their rights to oppose it. C -- Therefore, men can take a stand agaisnt abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). No, it was not a joke. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, we would have to overturn all the legislation on abortion that was voted on by men. Pro can't have it both ways. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, they must stay out on both sides. The sword cuts both ways. We must give abortion legislation back to the states, and then have only women decide on legislation about whether or not abortion should be legal. Pro states, ". .. if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Chrsitianity, which has been very male dominated. "Pro misrepresents my position. Only abortion-related decisions that were made by men would have to be overturned. Nothing in my reductio would indicate that every decision by males would have to be overturned. Besides, this is what Pro's position entails, not mine. My position entails that if something is immoral, especially so immoral that it should be illegal (such as murder, rape, and abortion, if it fits), then men have as much say in restricting it as women do. I have sufficiently upheld my argument. Pro has failed to give any compelling reason as to why the abortion decision should remain the woman's considering it, and hers alone. [1] Louis P. Pojman, "Abortion: A Defense of the Personhood Argument," The Abortion Controversy, 2nd Ed. , ed. Louis P. Pojman and Frank J. Beckwith, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998, p.278. [2] Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993, p. 133.

I am a little bit confused as to what you are asking for your contender. As a individual, I believe that fornication, which is a religious term, Is permitted. As a society, we need to start trusting our rational judgements and stop adhering to our superstitions and our childhood myths (religion). It is common knowledge that in our teen years, as we enter puberty, hormone rates increase and thus encourage sexually activity. This is a natural, biological, situation that occurs and sexually activity is often the result of this. Marriage, which is a religious institution, may not be right for young adults who might be experiencing these increased hormone levels. And honestly, I do not see how a slip of paper and a very expensive marriage ceremony can determine how much a couple loves each other and whether or not they should engage in sexually intercourse.

I forgot to say this last round, but welcome to DDO Con. I wish you many successful debates on this website. I don't have much time so I'll keep my rebuttals brief. Con's first argument about the number of abortions is irrelevant until evidence is provided that they are "unborn children" rather than just a fetus. Con also say that life begins at conception, but since no evidence is provided to support this, and I have provided evidence that contradicts it, there is no reason to believe this statement. Your argument that man and woman should not engage in intercourse unless they want a child is absurd. What if a couple only wants one child and the woman ends up getting pregnant in her mid twenties. No form of contraception is 100% effective. Is con proposing that the couple cease intercourse for the rest of their marriage? What about before a couple is prepared for a child? What about in the case of rape. In response to the adoption alternative I found statistics of in adopted children. "Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21." [1] Not only that but children are discriminated against in the adoption system. About 48% of unadopted children are Caucasian [1]. Is this because more Caucasian babies are put up for adoption? Of course not. Parents are selective when adopting. As for preventing teenagers from having intercourse through abstinence, all I will say is it doesn't work. The teen pregnancy rates are highest in states with abstinence only education [2]. The argument about women having more control of there bodies by practicing abstinence is absurd (I agree with the use of contraception but again it doesn't always work). Not only are you limiting their freedom by telling them to be abstinent, but telling woman to be abstinate rather than be able to have an abortion is saying that- instead of giving you option A (abstinence) and option B (abortion) the government will outlaw option B. Only being able to exercise option A (abstinence) will force you to have more discipline, ergo have more control over your body. This is using the definition of discipline for control. Realistically a more proper synonym for control in this situation is FREEDOM. Con's next argument addresses the next argument to rape/incest by saying why punish an unborn child? First of all Con has not proven it is a life already. Secondly it is no more punishing of the fertilized egg than men and women punish their individual sperm and eggs by not allowing them all to connect to one of their opposites and grow into a human. Is it punishing them to not let them have a life? All sperm and eggs are potential humans, so why is there no movement to preserve them? Shouldn't all of my sperm have an equal right to life? This is clearly absurd and needs no explanation. Con's argument that abortion is dangerous is largely untrue. There are rarely complications and any complications are usually minor. Abortion is less dangerous than childbirth [3][4][5][6][7] Bible argument: irrelevant, I'm not a Christian Murder argument: Con gave no evidence while there is significant evidence to the contrary. Pain argument: Firstly it doesn't make the fetus a human life, second it has NOT been proven. Conclusion: BoP is on Con here since she wants to make all abortions illegal. The lack of evidence alone should be enough but I have given strong arguments and rebuttals in favor of abortion. Back to you Con! [1] http://adoptuskids.org... [2]http://thinkprogress.org... [3]http://womenscareclinic.ca... [4]http://thelifecenter.publishpath.com... [5]https://www.prochoice.org... [6]http://mobile.reuters.com... [7]http://healthland.time.com...

Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.

Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, “A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.” 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had “no impactson rates of sexual abstinence.” [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...

PRO wrote;"I'd just like to state for the record that my opponent has agreed that the current system is unfair."This is incorrect. I simple point what my opponent proposal meant, in hope of clarifications, which with this quote confirms my assumption. There is a reason why I put fairness in quotation at the end, to point that; the "unfairness", if currently present, would just skew to the other side, as I feel the proposal my opponent established, to be unfair for the woman. I think is clear that he believes the current system is unfair to men, of why I suggest it would be; like skewing from one side to the other.PRO wrote;"I don't deny that abortions come with risks..."This was my point (women has risks vs men no risks), which my opponent clearly agree upon. PRO wrote;"My opponent's point is that abortions have risks, where the proposed male "equivalent" would not. Is this supposed to be justification for inequity? Or is he proposing that we insert risks into the male's options, despite the fact that obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition?"I'm not in support to the whole proposal my opponent has in the resolution, I'm CON to the resolution, I'm not here to try to make a proposal of my own.My opponent brought this proposal and took the role to defend such of proposal, and show the fairness of his proposal. I have yet to see him making a comparison to his proposal and the current system, and showing why the current system should be dropped and his system instated. If my opponent cannot show this, he failed the resolution.I'm not here to convince you to a new idea, the current system or fix my opponent proposal, which in this quote he gives the impression to exist, and believe I could give an idea of how to fix the hole in his argument (which he points that if I were to give such of idea, it would be a bad one). I'm just here to show that my opponent's idea does not do what he believes it does, and so far I have done my job.PRO wrote;"I've read about women who lie about being on birth control and even poke holes in condoms to purposely get pregnant, and part of the plan is to trap the father into child support if he doesn't stay, or even if he wants to stay but can't. I don't know how often this happens, and can only assume that it does at all; even if women never do this, however, they CAN. Under the current arrangement, they can do exactly as I described if they so choose. The proposed arrangement would abolish this possibility."This paragraph is a story told by my opponent. There is no source of any kind to support this story, and this story is by memory, which is even less reliable.

Lets begin with Pro's argument about currently legal abortion, as abortion is not legal in my state. There is currently much debate about whether or not to legalize it, the purpose of my debate is to show why not to legalize it. It also goes to show why Pro's 'illegal killing' argument is invalid and does not pertain to all states, including mine. Moving on. Since most home pregnancy tests detect pregnancy as early as a week after a missed period, 5 weeks after implantation, the fetus is then considered viable. (babymed.com) Current abortion laws in 13 different states do not allow abortion after 24 weeks because "a presumption of viability" exists. (wikipedia) If a 24 weeks fetus is considered viable, why not a 4-5 week fetus? The insinuation that all vertebrates be given human status because they all have heartbeats is absurd. But if that's the way you look at it, grant them human status then it would be illegal to kill and eat them as it would be considered cannibalism. As for pregnancy stemming from rape, the decision to abort would be completely left up to the mother. You said why add murder to a terrible thing like rape? Why should a woman be forced to carry a child that is a product of a hate crime? What about the daily reminder of the terrible crime commited against her? Rape victims want to move forward with their lives not be reminded of the incident everyday when they look down at their growing bellies. Why cause more pain and suffering by forcing her to carry it ? As you offered no argument on my statements about the abundance of birth control available to women today, I can only assume that you understand and agree with that fact. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the point I made in my last statement, and say that these numerous forms of birth control are available at little or no cost to a woman and most certainly should be utilized if pregnancy is not desired. Too often young women are engaging in sexual intercourse unprotected without thought to the consequences. Knowing, in some cases, that if they happen to get pregnant, it can just be 'taken care of'. No more should this be a viable option for irresponsible women. You made your bed lie in it. I'm willing to bet if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.

My main arguments are as follows: While I make exceptions for legitimate medical situations or if the mother was raped, and lives in one of those 31 states that allows rapists to sue for custody, abortion is cruel and unusual punishment for the baby. Babies are being torn to pieces, stabbed in the heart with a poison needle, or suffocated in the name of choice. Contraception or a consenting woman having her tubes removed is much better, I had my tubes removed for contraceptive reasons, so that is a better choice. Choice before conception, life after.


Question: Should Oral Contraceptives be Accessible Without Prescription?

Parents, not educational institutions, should be responsible for imparting sexual education to their offspring. Given the diverse cultural and societal perspectives on sexuality, it is the responsibility of the family to determine the appropriate approach to discussing this sensitive subject. The primary purpose of schools is to equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge for career readiness or further education; sexual education is a distinct, more personal matter. Promoting abstinence ensures that students are not exposed to information beyond what their parents deem appropriate, while still allowing for the possibility of more comprehensive education at home. This is particularly relevant considering that the majority of parents endorse abstinence education: a Zogby International survey of U.S. parents revealed that 78% believe sex education in public schools should prioritize abstinence over instruction on contraceptive use and condom application.[1] [1] Zogby International. “Survey of Nationwide Parents of Children Age 10-16.” Zogby International. 27 March 2007.

Access to an abortion should be legal for these reasons. First, access to abortion is a part of American history. It wasn't until the 1900's that abortion was illegal in every state, and even then it was still permissible in certain circumstances. Thus women have had access to legal abortions longer than they have been barred from it. Second, abortion should be legal because it safeguards women. Making abortion illegal won't prevent abortion it will prevent safe abortions-- to the risk of women. The truth is that women facing poverty, abuse, or simple lack of preparation will seek abortions if they want them. Outlawing abortion would result in a return to back ally treatments, rusty coathangers, and harm to the most at risk and in need women. Finally, abortion should be legal because women have a right to self-determinism. By outlawing abortion we are saying that women are subject men's procreative whim. It supposes that women should be in bondage until they deliver a man's offspring. In essence, we would be arguing that woman lose their agency and autonomy, their very humanity when they become pregnant-- be it through rape, incest, abuse etc.

I am a little bit confused as to what you are asking for your contender. As a individual, I believe that fornication, which is a religious term, Is permitted. As a society, we need to start trusting our rational judgements and stop adhering to our superstitions and our childhood myths (religion). It is common knowledge that in our teen years, as we enter puberty, hormone rates increase and thus encourage sexually activity. This is a natural, biological, situation that occurs and sexually activity is often the result of this. Marriage, which is a religious institution, may not be right for young adults who might be experiencing these increased hormone levels. And honestly, I do not see how a slip of paper and a very expensive marriage ceremony can determine how much a couple loves each other and whether or not they should engage in sexually intercourse.

You are beyond twisting my words. You're just about mutilating them. I said the safest way to do it is don't because that truly is the safest way but I am by NO WAY saying that a couple can't have sex if they don't want a baby, when did I even remotely say that? Did you even read what I written? I just said it was the best option. Is it the only option? No. If you want to knock her up go ahead! Better to be safe than sorry right? Then again I wasn't even talking about the risk of pregnancy from having sexual intercourse. I was clearly on about IF she got pregnant without wanting to. Notice the "if" in there. If she wants to do it that's all right! I am in no way against a couple pleasuring each other. So let's bring this debate back to the subject which is about the abortion law shall we? This debate has sort of skewed on way. So now why not we look at the law side of things next?

My proposed debate is based on the social paradigm that women shouldn't indulge in casual or frecuent sex, and those who do be frowned upon by society. I will be arguing CON, which means I will defend women having the right to practice sex freely without being discriminated or condenmed.

[ Re: Pregnancy Risks ] Just because the risks associated with the average pregnancy may not fall under the category of a "medical emergency," does not mean that other health concerns are not elevated in general in association with pregnancy. In other words, I agree that this debate is discussing so-called social abortions; however, that does not disregard the heightened medical concerns for a pregnant woman regardless of whether or not they are emergencies. The point is that a pregnant woman is always at risk and must adjust her lifestyle as such. [ Re: The Biological Definition of Sex ] In attempt to define sex as solely a means of reproduction, Pro attempts to use a color analogy. He says, "That is like saying the color blue will change as the definition of blue changes. Truth is not relative, their is an underlying truth to everything. " However, Pro is putting forth fallacious argumentation in trying to prove his point. For instance, it is true that orange is derivative of the color red. Similarly, it is true that orange is derivative of the color yellow. In other words, "The color orange derives from the color red" and "The color orange derives from the color yellow" are both true statements. Similarly, while it is true to say that people engage in sexual activity for the purpose of reproduction, it is also true to say that people engage in sex - even unprotected sex - for other reasons, including physical pleasure. Thus if people have sex for reasons other than reproduction, they may accept that pregnancy is a possible consequence; however, they may not accept that they be required to see that pregnancy through to childbirth. With that said, keep in mind that this debate is not about the morality of abortion but whether or not a woman should be prohibited to have an abortion solely based on the father's opinion. Because abortion is legal - and not the subject of this debate - we must accept that abortion is an alternative for those who get pregnant and consider abortion a viable option. [ Re: Contraceptives ] Pro writes, "Contraceptives were invited by people with no respect for the biological definition of sex and who just wanted to enjoy sex pleasures. " Note the fact that Pro is implementing his OPINION of sex and what he thinks sex should be for. Yes, I agree that contraceptives are for those who want to enjoy the physical pleasures of sex in a responsible way (to not transmit disease or result in an unwanted pregnancy). However to say that people who use contraceptives are "disrespecting" sex is merely Pro's conservative opinion with no factual basis. He is trying to impose his morality in a debate which is supposed to be about empirical facts. Anyway, Pro continues to say that people who take part in unprotected sex are basically saying, "Knock me up! " I have a few counters to that. First, a lot of people rely on female birth control i. e. The Pill. However, the pill can be very ineffective in females who take other medication (which may negate the effects of the pill) and are not as effective as condoms in general. Additionally, the supreme court judgment of Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion made abortion an acceptable legal option in the United States, even if one was irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex. Therefore, even if one WAS inviting the consequence of pregnancy, this debate is once again not about whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether or not a male has any right to force a woman to carry a child to term. So, I can just as easily say to Pro that if a man truly wanted a woman to have his baby, he could have / should have had sex only in a legal or spiritual commitment such as marriage where both parties agreed to have a baby should pregnancy be the consequence of their actions. [ Re: Fetus vs. Child ] Pro asks why a father has rights to a child and not to a fetus. This is pretty basic logic. Rights in this case go along with responsibilities. When a child is a fetus, the father has no responsibilities (they all lie with the mother whom is carrying it). When the child becomes a child, the child has needs outside of the mother's own biological cavities and thus the father as a co-parent has the responsibility to help provide for that child. While the fetus is inside of the mother, all of the rights AND responsibilities are that of the mother's. The father is essentially useless once fertilization occurs (and even that happens as a result of his ejaculated sperm; the father doesn't do anything himself to fertilize the egg - that all happens within the mother's body). Pro says, "By having sex the two agreed to share all reproductive rights because you can't reproduce with one. " However, once again the two haven't agreed to share all reproductive RESPONSIBILITIES, meaning the rights here reside with the mother until childbirth. When a woman is pregnant, she cannot eat fish, smoke, drink alcohol, eat hot dogs, drink caffeine, etc etc etc. So, what Pro is saying is that the mother and father's reproductive rights should be EQUAL; however, there is nothing to support this. The fetus resides within the WOMAN'S body. She is the one with all of the responsibility. She is the one with all of the risk. She is the one who gets morning sickness, she is the one whose responsibility it is to seek medical attention (sonograms, the gynecologist, etc. ), she is the one who gains weight and other body defects, she is the one who *GIVES BIRTH* and she is the one on which the fetus RELIES for SURVIVAL, etc. Thus it only makes sense that the RIGHTS of the fetus also lie with the mother - not the father. This all changes once the child is born. [ Re: Dog Analogy ] Pro says, "The 'house' in the analogy represents the mother's body. And why should it matter? Just because it lives in your "house" doesn't make me any less of an owner? " First of all, it's amusing how the house has come to represent the mother, when originally the house represented the father (Pro said in R2: If i had your dog in MY house, would I be able to do with it whatever I'd like? ). Anyway, Pro's question of whether or not the dog being in my house making him any less of an owner is irrelevant. He has ignored my entire argument, which has been that the dog cannot represent the fetus because a dog is a living entity outside of myself, whereas a fetus is not a living entity outside of the mother. My argument on fetus vs. child explains how the mother carries with her all of the rights until the child is born because she in turn bears all of the responsibilities until that point as well. You cannot make the same comparison with a dog. [ Re: Dog Analogy II ] "If your dog did become pregnant with the puppies and you decided to have a "puppy abortion" that would be in clear violation of the contract because it would violate my right over those puppies (which I have via the contract, sex). " I knew Pro would try this argument. However, it clearly doesn't work -- There is no contract or legal obligation as a result of sexual intercourse. If a woman was hired to be a surrogate mother, and upon childbirth did not want to give up the child, she would be under violation of a reproductive contract. However the sex act itself does not imply a contract. [ Re: Equal Rights ] I said: At best, the mother and the father have equal rights over the fetus. The debate then shifts to the obvious necessity of the mother's body, for which it becomes clear that the father has NO right. The mother's rights then trump the father's 2:1 thus making the resolution obsolete. Pro then said: We've already said in the resolution that the mother's health (and therefore body) does not have a bearing because this is a "social abortion. " Uh. .. what? What does non-medical emergencies have to do with the fact that a man has no right over a woman's body? [ Conclusion ] The resolution endorses slavery.

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.

Hello, thank you for accepting. Hopefully, this will be a fun debate, I am working on my debating skills. "Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case." I forgot to add something in my first post. Rape should be an exception. Otherwise, abortion should be illegal. Because rape is already illegal, I forgot to add the exception. There are many cases these days in which women get pregnant without getting raped, and they still want abortion. This is unfair, it is the woman's fault and she is killing the baby. "There's no basis for her argument." For your information, I am a male person. With that said, I will wait for my opponent to argue and I will build off of my opponent's arguments.

. . Round 2: This will be opening statements, values, value criterion, definitions, and the structure of your case Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing statements I will take anyone and hope someone challenges. Good luck to all. I will be trying to prove that teenagers should have the right to choose what medicine they take. Thanks to my opponent, commentators, and judges. Good luck and let the debate begin.

I support that abortion should just be the choice of women. First of all.There should be some limits:1.women who have been pregnant for 3 months shouldn't be allowed to have abortion. 2.the frequency to have abortion should be limited. As we all know.Sometimes pregnancy happens accidently.Many women are too young to bring up babies.Some women are still in school.They don't have enough time to work to earn money.And the most important is that they are immature and they don't know how to bring up babies and they can't distinguish from bad or good. So actually, it's not the right time to let them educate their babies.As the official report, the percentage of pregnant women in America increases 45% among unmarried women.It's definitely a large percentage. Based on this amazing data, many women choose to do abortion because of their situation.So,in my opinion,just care more about these women.And give them rights to decide their babies lives, they're not preapared.So it's not the righest time.And also give them rights to go on their own lives.On the other hand,the agreement of the abortion should be signed by the physical father and mother together.Even though babies have rights to be alive in our world, if their parents really want to give them up.We can conclude that the babies won't be as happy as other children.Abortion is not reasonable,however,we just need to address the importance of contraceptive method when people have sex. This will be more reasonable and let the women have the rights please.

Argument 1. Con claims that women are generally pressured to have sex and that condoms will lead to more cases of rape (the argument is not explicit). The alternative, fewer cases of consensual sex is not supported by his premise. Consensual sex requires, not surprisingly, consent. If the sex is consensual then arguments about condoms as a mitigating factor are void. Con is left with availability of condoms promotes rape. An unsupported base claim. In fact African women themselves are promoting condom use. http://www1.voanews.com... Men feeling less responsible, again unsupported - research? That children conceived from condom users suffer from parenting styles as opposed to those children not, also unsupported. Argument 2. Con argues that condom use is unlikely to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Research states the opposite. Con makes the fundamental error that advocacy of condom use exists in a vacuum. That is, with the distribution of condoms little else in the way of harm reduction occurs. Very few programs run in this manner; most use sex education alongside the distribution of condoms. This is an important point to maintain. Con is arguing for the removal of a salient piece of technology that can reduce transmission risk. When programs are in place that deal with harm minimisation, the removal of any component can fundamentally undermine the entire structure and success of the program. Con needs to make the case of, in those areas where programs are run where harm minimisation includes education of safe sex practices, the drive for later onset of first time sexual intercourse and reduced polygamy - why the removal of condoms - a key factor in the reduction of the spread of disease and pregnancy - should be seen as valid. It makes no sense to remove a successful, unique portion of a program and expect the program to run with greater results. Studies in Thailand and China has shown that mass distribution of condoms along with education significantly reduced the incidences of HIV/AIDS. Similar programs in Africa and America have had positive results. [2][3][4][5] http://www.who.int... Argument 3. Next Con argues that condom availability will lead to greater transmission (more sex) and promote polygamy. Con needs to show that abstinence would be/has/is greater in countries where such programs aren't run and where incidences of HIV/AIDS are high (research). In the Caribbean where programs are less available the prevalence is high (around 2% of the general population - ranking the region 2nd in the world). It simply doesn't follow that population prevalence equals self monitoring abstinence in those populations. The second part is that condom usage will create cases of HIV/AIDS at a greater rate. In addition to what has been already listed, studies of discordant couples where proper condom use is maintained find transmission to the partner is extremely rare. [6] Argument 4. The amount of research against abstinence is large. A study of declining HIV prevalence in Uganda found no evidence that abstinence or monogamy had contributed to the decline. [4] In the U.S. the results are the same - abstinence education does not achieve its goals. It does not reduce prevalence of sexual encounters, age of onset of first time sexual intercourse nor reduction in partners. Positive intent towards abstinence does not correlate with behaviour at all. [7] [8] [9] Cons arguments are largely baseless and contradict research. The proposal to remove a necessary component in harm reduction whilst having sex is at best misguided. == [1] http://www1.voanews.com... [2] Weller. S. C. A meta-analysis of condom effectiveness in reducing sexually transmitted HIV. Soc Sci Med, 36 1635-1644 [3] CDC. Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs. Atlanta, GA: CDC. [4] Wawer MJ et al. Declines in HIV Prevalence in Uganda: Not as Simple as ABC. Presentation at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, February 22-25, 2005. [5] de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. New England Journal of Medicine 1994; 331:341-346. [6] Weller SC & Davis-Beaty K (2007), 'Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission [7] Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001. [8] LeCroy & Milligan Associates. [Final Report, Arizona Abstinence Only Education Program Evaluation, 1998-2003]. Phoenix: Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Office of Women's and Children's Health, June 2003 [9] Barnett JE and Hurst CS. Abstinence education for rural youth: an evaluation of the Life's Walk program. Journal of School Health 2003; 73: 264-268


Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Over-the-Counter?

Birth control pills and their availability over the counter

According to the World Health Organization, Natural Family Planning (NFP) has an efficacy rate of 99.6%. However, this source may be biased. Condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but they have a high failure rate in doing so. The risks might decrease over time, but that does not alleviate the suffering of women who develop breast cancer while using the pill. Contrary to popular belief, condoms do not prevent abortion. This is just one reason why couples practicing NFP have lower divorce rates. Upon closer examination, there are several other factors contributing to this phenomenon.

The argument that using birth control is preferable to unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions is a contentious one. It is essential to consider both issues and decide for oneself if contraception is part of the solution or part of the problem. Due to the widespread use of birth control, more individuals are engaging in sexual activity without the intention of having children. As a result, sex outside of marriage has become increasingly common, leading to a higher number of pregnancies. Some believe that teaching individuals how to use contraceptives will help address this issue. However, studies have shown that "programs in safer sex education and condom distribution have not reduced the out-of-wedlock birth rates among sexually experienced teens. . . . The fact is, increased condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates."[1] A recent example is a school in Colorado that began distributing condoms to its students. Within three years, the birth rate rose to 31% above the national average, with one hundred expected births among the twelve hundred students in a single school year. The administrators were left searching for explanations.[2]

When unintended pregnancies occur, many opt for abortion as a solution. Studies indicate that approximately half of all unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.[3] Some argue that increased contraceptive use could have reduced these abortion rates. However, the research institute of the nation's largest abortion provider admits that most women who undergo abortions had been using birth control during the month they became pregnant![4] Couples who experience a pregnancy despite using contraception often blame the failed contraception, but by using contraceptives, they have already set their will against new life. Since contraception treats pregnancy as if it were a disease, many conclude that abortion is the cure. A condom advertisement once referred to pregnancy as "the mother of all nightmares." With this mentality, it is unsurprising that sex researcher Alfred Kinsey stated, "

Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.

Resolved: Medicines Should Be Made FreeI am Con, so Pro should start the argument first.

Thank you to Con for his response.When I talk of 'power imbalance' in sexual relationships, I'm not talking about rape or "coercion" particularly. I'm talking about ordinary, everyday sexual politics. For example, in a 2006 survey of Canadian women [1]:"Of these 2751 women [who had sex but didn't want to get pregnant], 410 (14.9%) never used contraception. Among contraception users, the most frequently used methods of contraception were condoms (54.3%), OCs (43.7%), and withdrawal (11.6%). Newer contraceptive methods were used by less than 4%. Choice of contraceptive method varied by age. Only 65.2% of respondents who were sexually active and not trying to conceive “always used” contraception." (my emphasis)How can it be, in this day and age, that women are still allowing these situations? How can they still be so much on the back foot? And, to my mind, the high incidence of abortion is a symptom of women's lack of power in ordinary, everyday sexual relations.Con thinks that "[t]he real solution is to raise boys to be better men and treat women with respect..." My own view is that women need to take control more. It's OK for us to disagree on the best means to improve the situation because it's not central to the debate.Con gives the example of Fat Fred and the wallet which, I'm afraid, I find confusing. Is Fat Fred the woman, the wallet the foetus? Or is it the other way around? But the overall principle is sound. We don't have absolute right over our bodies. We have only the rights that society/government gives us. And societies differ in terms of what rights are granted. That's the whole point of this debate, I suppose.My argument is that women should be able to decide whether they want to donate their own biological resources to another person (foetus) or if they want to keep those resources for themselves. Con is arguing that they should be forced to donate those resources against their will. This has been preamble. I will now address Con's arguments directly.P1. Foetal rightsCon argued that abortion in theory is separation of mother and foetus, but that the procedures are often direct killing methods. This is quite true. And if Con insists, we could legislate against these direct killing methods and allow only "pure" separation methods. But why? Is it more humane to have a foetus come out live and die in a kidney dish? To my mind, there's not much difference. Presumably, the doctors go for the quickest, safest, cheapest method.Abortion is "withholding support" and it's also "killing". Which term you use depends on what you want to say. In terms of foetal rights, it's withholding support. Because we do not allow any person the right to take biological resources from another against her will. Women have the right to terminate pregnancies. Is it moral for them to do so? These are two quite separate issues. It's not uncommon for women to use abortion quite casually, as a form of contraception. I can understand Con's distaste for this. I don't like it much myself. But what should we do about it? Con would like to intervene. He would like to impose his own morality on women, and force them to continue the pregnancies against their will. I find this sort of position difficult to understand. You can't end evil in the world by forcing others to comply with your own view of right and wrong. Goodness. Hasn't history shown us this over and over?P.2 Killing humans is [prima facie] immoral No, no, of course I meant "privacy" in quite a different way. I didn't mean it as the opposite of "public". That would make no sense at all. What I meant was that as a society we allow individuals freedom and control over certain moral decisions. For example. I think that bystanders should help at an accident, if they can. I think that nobody should lie to their mothers. I think people should be faithful to their partners. That everyone should make sure to pay for their fair share of drinks. That nobody should mention sociobiology at parties. But should there be legislation to force people to do these things? Of course not. Apart from the difficulty, the impossibility, of enforcing such legislation, people should be allowed to make their own choices. Of course we disagree with a lot of what they do. That’s diversity for you. And so, yes, Con thinks that abortion is immoral. Whether he is right or wrong to think so is not the issue here. The issue is: is it OK for him to take his view of morality and impose it on women in the form of some kind of restriction on their actions (legislative restriction, I’m assuming)? No, it isn’t. P.3 Anyone can take a stand against immorality Con said: "If Pro can say that murder is wrong, then he could admit that if abortion were murder, it would also be objectively wrong." This is a circular argument. Murder is, by definition, wrongful killing. Therefore, if abortion were murder, it would be unnecessary to add that it's wrong. But it's not murder. Con said "And by "stand against," I merely mean "work toward the ending of the practice."" That's hardly more clear. This how things are: 1. There are pregnant women who want to terminate. 2. There are doctors willing to do the termination. 3. Con wants to end the practice. THEREFORE: some degree of force is required to prevent the termination. Possibly, Con desires legislation against abortion which would get him the full force of the police and the legal system to help him force women to continue their pregnancies. When I said "morality is subjective", I wasn't trying to plunge into a defense of moral (or cultural) relativism! Far from it. As Charlesworth and Chinkin say: "While concerns of cultural relativism arise with respect to human rights generally, it is striking that 'culture' is much more frequently invoked in the context of women's rights than any other area." [2] And, yes, we've seen that conflict over and over again, with abortion rights, social justice, gendered poverty, female circumcision, trafficking, child marriages and female infanticide. So no, I am not arguing for moral relativism. Quite the opposite. With my "morality is subjective" comment, I was trying to point out that Con's view of morality is his own and should not be imposed onto millions of women. Nevertheless, I take note of Con's use of the term "civilized" as in "civilized countries". Civilized countries, he says, hold to the same moral standard. Presumably, countries that have a different standard are "uncivilized". Another circular argument. Con mentioned slavery and violence against women as things that are wrong even if legal. Of course. The big difference, of course, is that these are violences imposed on individuals that should be removed. And now Con is arguing for another violence to be imposed on women. He wants foetuses to grow into babies and children, and he is happy to put aside women's rights over their own bodies to achieve his aim. Of course he shouldn't "work towards ending the practice" of women having sovereignty over their own bodies. C. Therefore men can take a stand against abortion Men have often been successful preventing abortion. In fact, Roe vs Wade only existed because men had been so successful stopping abortion. If men's influence over abortion decisions were removed entirely (including past influence, which is silly, and also not part of this debate, but whatever), then women would be free to have abortions. Which is how it should be. Con is free to dislike abortion. He is free to talk prolifically about it and against it. However, his will should not be imposed on women. Nobody's will should be. If we don't want to give our bodies and our biological resources to support foetal life, then we have every right to refuse to. And nobody should force us otherwise. [1] http://www.sexualityandu.ca... [2] Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin The Boundaries of International Law:A Feminist Analysis Juris Publishing 2000. p.222

1. It doesn't matter for how long we've done it, it's still wrong. Jesus Christ, you libs really like to pull up history a lot. So what that a hundreds( and even thousands) ago we did abortions? Back the then the world was in a lot worse shape than we are now. Now, everyone has equal rights. Much of this stuff in the first paragraph does not even matter to us right now. 2.I don't understand how it's the our fault for women getting an illegal abortion, it's illegal. If a woman is pregnant, and is not our fault. It is not our responsibility to make sure a woman does not get pregnant, it's the woman's. Like I saw a little down the page, the woman knows the risk, yet takes it anyway. 3.It is not oppression, and it's not a woman's right. If a woman does not want to have a baby, why is she having sex in the first place? It is not my fault women want to have sex, they KNOW the risk of getting pregnant, they KNOW the ways to prevent it, and the best way is called abstinence. It's not that hard for a woman to not have a child. 4.Actually, the rates of contraception prevalence is significantly higher than what most people think. The rate of contraception prevalence is at a solid almost 80%, but if people would use protection CORRECTLY, it would be even higher. The rate of women getting unwanted pregnancies and NOT using contraception is at a 10.6%.And I didn't see the USA on that statistics chart. These are all from third world or countries in a much worse situation than we are.

I will offer my Point of View on this Issue and then I will respond to your Points in the Next Round. It is the View of the CON aka Me that Crisis Pregnancy Centers should not be regulated as Healthcare Providers. Government does not have the Power to regulate Faith Based Enterprises. Doing so would violate the First Amendment Right to Practice One's Religion Freely without any Obstacle. For sure Abortion is a Controversial Issue, and one could debate it for days and days. BUT.....It doesn't mean that the Government could overextend it's Reach. Since Crisis Pregnancy Clinics are Non Profit and Faith Based, The Government can not regulate it the same as A Planned Parenthood Center. The Government can not regulate Non Commercial Speech. And these Crisis Clinics are NonCommercial. They are NONPROFIT. A Similar Situation happened around 2 Years ago. https://www.washingtontimes.com... The ACLU filed a Lawsuit forcing a Catholic Hospital to provide Abortions. The Federal Court shot it down..... the Government can't regulate a Religious Based Group and force it to provide the type of Services that would Violate their Beliefs.

The drug should not be legalized because if it is, then other drugs like herion and cocaine might be made legal as well. While it is used to treat diseases like cancer and other medical problems, which I have no problems with, if it was legalized, then dealers would be free to sell it on the streets to anyone they wanted. Crime would go up because as more of it sells, gangs would want to enlarge their territories, thus putting people who live in the areas in the middle of a possible gang war, and cause innocent people to be seriously hurt or killed. Drugs like marijuana are harmful to young children as it messes with their brain, which is still in important developing processes, if legalized then it increases the danger marijuana poses to them. Any drug has a risk of overdose no matter what it is, cocaine and herion are placed in the same category as marijuana, and you can over dose on the two, every drug has the possibility of over dosing.

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.

If abortion were to be made illegal, it may be more expensive but it would not stop people from getting them. It would just decrease the safety of the procedure. You are right that we should not have untrained and unlicensed doctors performing these surgeries but the fact is that we would have them if abortion was made illegal. So it is better for the procedure to be done right and professionally rather than in an unsafe environment. If it was my relative or family I would want them to be able to make the choice for themselves. Some girls may be more promiscuous but some may not, one can't say what would really cause girls to act that way. Abortion being legal or illegal does not directly relate to girls being promiscuous or not. Abortion being illegal does not deter girls promiscuity. Statistics of rape cannot be considered completely accurate due to victims not always coming forward which is a lot more prevalent in male than female cases.

Okay, I accept your challenge. Abortion should be legal.

There are many reasons why a couple are unable to conceive naturally, one in six couples are unable to conceive on their own. (Createfertitlity) Women can have blocked tubes meaning that eggs cannot pass through the fallopian tubes to enter the uterus. There are some older couples that still want to have children but their eggs and sperm are unable to fertilize on their own. Polycystic ovary syndrome is when there is a hormone imbalance that causes woman"s menstruation cycle to be irregular making ovulation less common. It can allow single mothers or same sex couples to be able to have babies, with sperm donation. Any unused embryos can be used to donate for research or for couples who don"t have fertilized eggs. With all of these great benefits and all the many reasons why couples can't conceive naturally, I see no reason why a person should not be allowed to make their own choice in how they conceive their child.