Question: Should the Legality of Abortion be Upheld?

The Legality of Abortion
This discussion revolves around the question, "Should abortion be legal?" In a nutshell, the answer is no. To elaborate, the response is a resounding no. Humor aside, abortion fundamentally equates to taking a life, irrespective of the perspective. I'm anticipating an insightful discourse.

The justices in Roe v. Wade based their decision off the supposed "right to privacy" that gives women the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion without state legislation interfering. Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [1] What portion of this includes the "right to privacy"? Well, believe it or not, it's this part. " . . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty . . ." It's the liberty part. Apparently "liberty" includes the liberty to abort your baby. Now, keep in mind that in cases of judicial review the Supreme Court is supposed to decide whether law(s) violate the constitution"according to what the constitution was actually intended to mean. They cannot make up their own interpretation just to get the decision they want. Or at least they SHOULDN'T. However, that's what they did here. Now, for the purposes of this debate, in determining whether the SC decision was valid in light of original intent, there is one vital question we must answer: Was the right to have an abortion a "liberty" that was INTENDED to be protected by the phrase "No State shall . . . deprive any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law"? It may also be considered whether the baby is entitled to life under this amendment, but we shall confine ourselves to this issue. Now, if abortion was intended to be protected by the framers of this amendment, then we would expect to see wide support of abortion among legislators and the general public around 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted. The following is taken directly from the SC's discussion of the history of abortion: "Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century, the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased [for abortion]." The court then goes on to point out that by the end of the 1950's anti-abortion laws were in place in most of the US. Does it look like legislators approved of the woman's "protected liberty" of abortion around the 1860's? Indeed, the evidence indicates that around the time of the 14th Amendment legislators were starting to crack down harder on abortions. And what did the medical authorities at the time say? Direct quote from Roe v. Wade: "The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period. An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May, 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 778 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization": The first of these causes is a widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime -- a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening. The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life. . . . The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [p142] and to its life as yet denies all protection. Id. at 776. The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id. at 28, 78. In 1871, a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance, we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less. 22 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 268 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id. at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child -- if that be possible, and calling the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females -- aye, and men also, on this important question."" It seems that the legislators listened to the AMA, as the previous account of laws indicated. The court itself says very clearly, "The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century." The evidence is clear. In 1859 the AMA was indignantly supporting the suppression of "criminal abortion." From before that time until the 1950's public opinion, represented by the laws enacted by legislators, was steadily mounting against abortion. It should be obvious that any claim that the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended "liberty" to include the "liberty to abort your child" is preposterous. We may safely say such a possibility of graphic misinterpretation did not even enter their minds. If it had, they would surely have clarified the point, as no one in their day and age could have otherwise guessed their meaning! It was only through the Court's unprecedented act of judicial activism was this unjust decision arrived at. Over to you, Con. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... You can find Roe v. Wade online here: http://www.law.cornell.edu... It is long, but be assured the portions I qutoed are there.

I am not here to prove whether or not abortion should be legal or not, as said by the title, I am here to prove that abortion is not a moral act. I will start by stating what it means to say that abortion is a completely moral act. First, it means that you believe that the human fetus has no value or rights, after all, it is considered completely moral to end its life.It means that you would agree that it is morally correct that the mother and father of a baby, or fetus, get to choose its worth. If a mother wants to have the baby, then society accepts that it is a life, and only then agrees that it has a right to live, so much that if you where to murder it, you would be charged for homicide on behalf of the unborn baby, despite the fact that it is not technically a living being. Yet if a mother says that she doesn't want the baby, then it loses all worth, how does this make sense? And lets agree on something, there are circumstances in which having an abortion is definitely immoral. If I were to believe that abortion is completely and always moral, then I would agree that it is okay to have an abortion if I wanted a boy and found out that the baby was a girl. Would this be moral? Of course not.

In the previous round, I was not arguing for making abortion to be illegal, I was arguing that since my opponent made the statement that rape should be the only exception to abortion, my opponent could not argue that fetuses have the right to life since he would be nulling that right by allowing the decision of abortion to rest in the hands of mothers who were raped.So far my opponent has not provided a single argument to why abortion should be illegal. What is wrong with abortion? My opponent hasn't said anything wrong about abortion to justify making it illegal.If there's nothing wrong with abortion, I don't see why it should be outlawed.

First, I would like to say that abortion is not killing a human being. Since a human being, by definition, is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. (1) So an embryo is classified as a human being. Even if abortion would be illegal, women would still seek a way for abortion, bringing them to find illegal places performing abortion, which would not have good hygiene and could be the cause for a lot of health problems and even cause fatality for the women. 42% of women carrying out abortion are poor. (2) These women would not be able to provide for themselves and the baby. They would also miss out on work and lose wages because of it. 1: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2: . https://www.guttmacher.org...

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

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

Hello all! In this debate I will be arguing the following statement:"Abortion should remain legal in the United States."This means, the Con, upon accepting this debate, agrees to argue the following:"Abortion should not remain legal in the United States."~~~~~~~~~~~~Itinerary:Round 1: Acceptance and definitionsRound 2: IntroductionsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Conclusions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~I believe my thesis statement is self-explanatory, however, should there be any questions as to the semantics, feel free to ask in the comments or in a message.This also goes for any specific rules that a contending "Con" may wish to see in this debate.I'm leaving this debate open to anyone, so please remain committed to this debate, and read carefully before accepting!

*aside from rape and mother's health, abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished. given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle. abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it would probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it. human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences. and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where. another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother? plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal.

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

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


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The legality of abortion has been a contentious issue for many years, with arguments on both sides of the debate. Some argue that abortion should remain legal, while others believe it should be banned. Those who are against abortion often argue that a fetus is a separate life from the mother and that the mother should not have the right to terminate that life. They also argue that legalizing abortion results in more deaths, as the unborn babies are also considered people. Additionally, they claim that the safety of abortion does not justify its legality, as the motive for abortion is often to avoid having a child, not to save the mother's life. Furthermore, they argue that abortion should not be an option for parents who find out their child may have a handicap, as every human has the right to live and it should not be the parent's decision to terminate the pregnancy. They also argue that legalizing abortion does not necessarily lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, as parents may not take responsibility for their actions if they know abortion is an option. Finally, they argue that a fetus is a stage of human life, just like a baby or an elderly person, and that it is wrong to disregard a type of human life, as has been done in the past with slavery and the Holocaust. While those in favor of abortion argue that it should be legal for various reasons, those against abortion argue that it is a violation of human rights and should be banned. The debate over the legality of abortion is complex and multifaceted, with arguments on both sides. However, those against abortion often argue that the safety of abortion does not justify its legality, as the motive for abortion is often to avoid having a child, not to save the mother's life. They also argue that legalizing abortion does not necessarily lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies, as parents may not take responsibility for their actions if they know abortion is an option. Finally, they argue that a fetus is a stage of human life, just like a baby or an elderly person, and that it is wrong to disregard a type of human life, as has been done in the past with slavery and the Holocaust. The debate over the legality of abortion continues, with both sides presenting strong arguments. However, those against abortion argue that it is a violation of human rights and should be banned, while those in favor of abortion argue that it should be legal for various reasons. Ultimately, the decision on the legality of abortion will be up to the courts and the lawmakers, who will have to weigh the arguments on both sides and make a decision that

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

As indicated in the comments, as men being allowed to have opinions on abortion is largely uncontroversial (and to deny this is to commit a logical fallacy known as ad hominem, saying that a man's opinion is worthless specifically because he's a man), this debate will focus on whether or not men should have any say in whether or not a woman aborts her child, or in whether or not society should forbid abortions. I will make the following argument:P1) The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. P2) Killing human beings is immoral. P3) Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). C) Therefore, men can take a stand against abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). To support my first premise:Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [2]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [3]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. " [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. Therefore, the unborn entity is the offspring of both the mother and the father. To support my second premise:This is largely uncontroversial. Killing adult human beings is wrong. What makes it wrong? Philosopher Don Marquis illuminates the reason in his famous article against abortion, Why Abortion is Immoral:“Some answers can be eliminated. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is that a killing brutalizes the one who kills. But the brutalization consists of being injured to the performance of an act that is hideously immoral; hence, the brutalization does not explain the immorality. It might be said that what makes killing us wrong is the great loss others would experience due to our absence. Although such hubris is understandable, such an explanation does not account for the wrongness of killing hermits, or those whose lives are relatively independent and whose friends find it easy to make new friends. “A more obvious answer is better. What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. ” [5]Killing human beings is wrong because it robs them of all their future experiences. Killing the unborn are also wrong for the same reason. To support premise three:This should also be largely uncontroversial. You didn't have to be African to oppose slavery in America, you didn't have to be Jewish to oppose the Holocaust. You don't have to be female to oppose slavery, or attempt to put an end to it. Conclusion:Therefore, the conclusion is supported. If men have no say in the issue, then you would have to remove pro-choice men from the equation, as well. We would have to overturn Roe v. Wade, in fact, because it was voted on by nine men. Anyone can oppose the killing of innocent human beings. So anyone, men included, can attempt to get abortion made illegal again, as killing older humans is legal. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20. [5] Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, 1989.

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

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

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

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

Abortion should be illegal because it is a murder of a human being. I will present my reasons after you present your first argument.

Since Pro brought up cases I will also while rebutting claims. Case one: Human developmentFrom the source it states a fetus will develop the feeling of pain between 7. 5 to 15 weeks. At 7. 5 weeks it will develop receptors around the skin. The abdomen receptors develop around 15 weeks. This might seem like Pro has a point but other facts were given by the source which was that "for neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, The review said. " It also states even after 19 weeks the neurons will have to extend to where pain is perceived which means a baby will develop pain between 23 and 24 weeks. Meaning an abortion can be done without the fetus feeling pain before 24 weeks. A painless death of the fetus would be the right thing to do if the child is not wanted for whatever reason. Source:Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says (LiveScience) Case two: Unwanted childrenUnwanted children would be considered children put into care. From the second source out of 770 people surveyed: “Two thirds of the young men and nearly half of the young women had been involved in some way with the juvenile or criminal justice system. ” From this I can state from the emancipated people from foster care homes majority of them do resort to crime. Someone does not turn to crime if their life was decent which means if you were able to make abortion illegal. I am going to assume that the numbers will rise and will increase the amount of people who will turn to crime. With abortion in place it will not be the case and more access of abortion is better than removing it which results in emancipated adults, Which were previously foster children, Turning to crime. In more detail 50. 8% have been arrested Source: afcars report #24 (Should be the first Pdf link) Case three: The impact of legalised abortionThis is from the Quarterly Journal of Economics 2001: “with high rates of abortion have experienced roughly a 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion regions since 1985. ” With abortion it has reduced crime in general. Meaning abortion does have an impact on other crimes and if the data is correct in a good way. I would also like to mention the report does not say it was because of abortion instead it states with states that have legalised abortion earlier the drop in crime appeared much sooner. Meaning Pro would be advocating for Abortion being banned and would see an increase in crime. Like you said earlier “the government has an inherent right to protect its citizens from harm. ” Which means you are advocating for harm thus by your own definition going against what a government should be doing. The document also implies that illegal abortion was reduced and the cost of abortions was also reduced due to abortion being legalised. Before Rov v Wade it was $400 to $500 now I am guessing would be in 2001 is $80. Source: The impact of legalized abortion on crime (Should be the first pdf file link) I would have liked to know your stance on contraception before so that we can agree or disagree on its use. Yes, It does remove the need for abortion if people who do not want abortion use contraception but as it stands contraception is not always available due to it not being free. Even though we might agree on contraception I still would not ban abortion. Reason is because freedom is better than restrictions. The blanket statement does only work at a point since I do not agree with someone taking someone else’s life but in general the less restriction we oppose the freer the people are. Freer people will have more options to live a fulfilling life thus not revolt against the state. I would also like Pro to not dodge the entire reason of this debate that the title clearly states “Abortion should be banned”. Pro has not even given evidence or reasons for how is this going to be the case. This “The law will be enforced. I am simply saying you can't stop 100% of abortions because OBVIOUSLY some people will find ways around it if they have to. But on the whole it will be effective and stop a majority of abortions. It is by no means 'meaningless' and unless you want to prove that more than 50% of the population will get around it then pipe down. “is not enough to make his side correct. This is not providing any evidence of his side being correct instead he pushed the burden on me to tell him why making abortion illegal would not work. I have with hypothetical scenarios with common items in a house (knives and stairs) yet Pro cannot even provide counter hypotheticals or even evidence (like in my Case Three) that would mean abortion is possible of preventing illegal abortion or where illegalising has worked as an example. So basically what I am gathering is that Pro wants abortion illegal because of morals not because it is pragmatic. An example of something immoral but since it cannot be pragmatically banned it is still around that would be prostitution. Prostitution can exist illegally and more than likely if both parties are able to keep secrets then the state cannot do anything if it was illegal. The problem is that if the law does not prevent abortion majority of the time then why even have the law in the first place? The meaningless part was an exaggeration but my point did get across. Another thing I would like to mention is that if you cannot provide evidence of legalised abortion working then I would like to know what the punishment would be if someone does abort a baby. “so to follow the assumption that the woman was raped is dangerous in that it teaches women that if they want the abortion all they have to do is scream rape even if they weren't raped. ” The NCBI (National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health) have already had this discussion. “the laws usually require women to undergo a medical examination to qualify for a legal abortion. ” Meaning they have already accounted for what you meant. Sure no mention of the 6-9 months court case but it is good enough to assume if medical examination was taking place the women would be able to abort due the evidence (which can be a rape kit) being required in court. Source: Rape as a legal indication for abortion: implications and consequences of the medical examination requirement. (NCBI) "If I murder someone and then claim that it was a 'mistake' and that I'll never do it again I cannot simply go unpunished. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions. The same way a lot of 16 year olds who chose not to be smart but knew exactly what they were doing will have to learn from them the same way. ” Problem with this is that the law does account for the thing I was stating. It is called involuntary manslaughter. About 16 year old women the prefrontal cortex is fully developed at the age of 25. Sure we do punish minors for other crimes but the punishment is reduced for minors so what would be the punishment of minors be for aborting a fetus? Should the minor be charged with murder? Source: Understanding the Teen Brain (URMC)Murder United States Law (Wikipedia) I know I did not address every single point (Doing other things) but have made my point clear. I would like as a must for Pro is evidence or explanation (both would be great) on how abortion will work and what would the punishment be for breaking the law you want in place.

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

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


Question: Should the Legality of Abortion be Upheld?

The issue of abortion
I hold a pro-life stance. Abortion can be considered as taking a life since life starts at conception. Unborn infants are human beings with the inherent right to life. However, I do acknowledge certain exceptions: in cases of rape (unless the mother wishes to keep the child), when the mother's life or health is at risk, in cases of incest, when the fetal life or health is in danger. I am open to engaging in a constructive dialogue with those who hold differing views. I will provide evidence-based arguments in the subsequent rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5.

No, I do not think abortion should be legal. Abortion is not right because the child that is forming inside the mother's womb is not just a clump of cells its an actual human being! Yes, there is women's rights but it just goes too far such as abortion and other things. It is actually proved that 90/100% women who want to do abortion, but see the baby through the ultra sound decide against their abortion plan. Finally, if you don't want a child don't have sex or if you do get pregnant give up the baby for adoption after it is born so it may have a good life with someone who will actually care for them.

I know what you guys are thinking, "ugh, another abortion topic". Sorry, I felt like I had to do one at some point. To sufficiently negate I do not need to prove that abortion is good, just that there is no justifiable reason to say that we "should" ban it. I'm sure my opponent will love and have a hayday with this, but I will be arguing that abortion is acceptable in every circumstance, except late term. I will take the extreme position. Lets begin. 1. Abortion is not a wrong form of murder, as some make it out to be. Abortion is, however, killing. I will agree to this any day. Yes, I said it. What we should realize though is that killing is not always unacceptable. For instance, stepping on an ant is technically an act of murder, you killed the ant. But we most likely agree that killing an ant isnt a big deal. Certainly not enough to justify the banning of ant killing. There are other examples I can provide, but what we can infer from this is that there are acceptable acts of killing. Now, its obvious that killing a real human being is considered a big deal. I agree. My point here is a fetus is not a human being. It is a compilation of undeveloped cells. Technically speaking, a fetus is less developed than any adult creature on the planet, such as our aforementioned ant friend. For this reason we cannot treat a formation of forming biological matter as a real human. Thus, because many nonhuman things aren't considered unacceptable to kill, a fetus should not be considered immune from death. 2. Forced beliefs. One of the great things about the legality of this act is that we have a choice of whether or not to exercise it. If people believe abortion is wrong, nobody is forcing them to have one. They have every right to say no. In the same respect, if a person feels the need to have one, more power to them. Theoretically speaking, this should make it to where abortion isnt as hot of an issue that it is, but sadly it doesn't. The reason is that certain pro-lifers feel like they have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their body. There is absolutely no respect for what other people believe. These people think that its somehow okay to force other people into doing what they believe is right. This notion is ridiculous. There are documented instances where extreme pro lifers have physically attacked or abused someone who had an abortion, simply because they did not agree with their belief. Its really a shame that this kind of thing happens over something that is bringing neither party any harm. So basically, I believe that people should be free from other people's coercions when making this decision. Let them make the choose themselves, and respect that choice. If you are against abortion and do not have one when you had the opportunity, I will respect your decision and leave you alone. I also expect you to have the same respect for my decision, and allow me to do what I want or need to do freely. Even though I'm a guy. But you get the point. By making abortion illegal, you are forcing your own beliefs onto hundreds of thousands of people. This is comparable to the many vast wars that have been started over religion. Millions of people have been killed simply because one group of people felt like they could force other people into accepting their religious beliefs. I'm sure all of us can agree this is wrong and a tragedy. Banning abortion is exactly the same concept. ---Preempt--- I expect my opponent to argue against this point that under this logic, we should also allow people to murder and respect their decision as to whether they kill or not. This is vastly different. Murder of a live human is something that is widely considered wrong by a strong majority of people, and has genuine external impacts in the real world. Abortion is a debatable issue, in addition to having very little, if any, notable impact on society. Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.

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

I will be taking the stance that abortion is not murder. This debate will be relative to the US only, as Pro did not take the opportunity to restrict the limits of the arguments and situations. The debate to which Pro refers to in his argument can be found here. I will reiterate my arguments for convenience later this round, however. Rebuttals “You said so yourself that murder is defined as ‘killing someone’” Ah, the ever-present fallacy of quoting out of context. Yes, I did say this, yet you took this quote and used it to misrepresent my side of the argument. Murder is defined as “killing someone,” just unlawfully. You fail to mention this, leading me to question your integrity relating to debates. Now, back to the actual quote. Abortion is not unlawful, but I will go into this in more detail later. “Although the baby is connected to her body it is not her brain and it is not her body” And? This doesn’t make it murder or even cause it to be illegal. I will admit that the baby is technically not part of her body, yet this isn’t a point backing up abortion’s status as murder. Abortion may be immoral, but that is for another debate. Argument(s) Abortion is legally not murder. Murder, as I said roughly before, is defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” [1] Abortion is lawful, as shown in the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade [2]. The decision written by Harry Blackmun, who had previously served as the counsel for Mayo Clinic from 1950 to 1959. His resolution states that the laws in Texas, which prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger, were unconstitutional [3]. Roe could not afford to travel to another state for a safe, legal, and approved abortion; she was also single and unmarried, so she had no husband to raise the baby with. Roe argued that these laws infringed on her right to privacy as written in multiple amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Roe, 7 to 2, showing that abortion is legally justified. P1) Abortion is legal. P2) Killing is murder if and only if it is illegal. C1) Abortion is not murder. I have no need to state any more arguments, as I have easily fulfilled my BoP. I look forward to Pro’s response to my likely irrefutable argument. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://law2.umkc.edu...

Well first off, depending on whether you consider a fetus a human, it is not a death penalty. In the constitution Americans are given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By denying a woman an abortion, you are taking away her rights. Why is it that the baby has more rights than the woman? In the constitution it says all men are equal. To give more rights to the baby would be unjust. Further on, abortion is not immoral. Why should it be illegal.

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.

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

Thank you for your rebuttals Evangelistic Omega, and I applaud you on staying away from my strengths in the art of debating, and identifying them before the debate. I will now first like to defeat any religious arguments on this debate with this fact: Although the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic). [1] This fact would defeat any religious arguments because it states that religious churches, do not actually oppose legalizing abortion. Now that I have defeated any religious arguments I would now like to move on to rebuttals. I"m probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn"t a life, as that"s basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I"ll be brief. A fetus can"t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother"s body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn"t imply a right to use somebody else"s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else"s life. The "right to life" also doesn"t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else"s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well? In your rebuttals you stated that you would rather have a child alive and in an orphanage. This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn"t the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34. Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies " not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents. In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn"t address all of them. Now I will move on to my constructive speech. A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). [2] The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion.[3] The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. [4] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [5] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [6] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [7] [8] Abortion reduces crime. According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. [9] It is for the reasons that I have stated above, and in my previous speech that I would encourage a vote against the resolution. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals and speech in the next round. Below you will see a list of the resources that I have used to write my rebuttals and speech. Thank you for your time. Resources: [1]Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant, religions.pewforum.org, June 2008 [2]E.G. Raymond and D.A. Grimes, "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feb. 2012 [3]American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Medical Association, "Brief of Amici Curiae [in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services et al. v. Attorney General Gregory Abbot et al.]," acog.org, Dec. 19, 2013 [4]Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973 [5]Corinne H. Rocca, Katrina Kimport, et al., "Women's Emotions One Week after Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Sep. 2013 [6]Susan A. Cohen, "Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women"s Risk of Mental Health Problems," Guttmacher Policy Review, Spring 2013 [7]Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh.org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014) [8]Annalee Newitz, "What Happens to Women Denied Abortions? This Is the First Scientific Study to Find Out," io9.com, Nov. 13, 2012 [9]John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!," freakonomics.com, Nov. 28, 2005)

Abortion should be illegal. If a woman is running around having unprotected sex with either one guy or multiple partners, that woman and that man should take full responsibilities for what precautions they did not take. Imagine ripping a life out of the woman's womb. The baby is innocent and had nothing to do with you and your partners carelessness so why punish it? For example say this woman is trying to relieve some stress and goes out with her girls to a party. Relieving some of this tension this woman decides to drink some vodka shots and some tequila, wakes up the next morning and a few weeks later she finds out that she is pregnant. Not knowing who the father is she decides to go to a clinic where she has to take a pill and the fetus will just flush out. How gruesome is that, forcing yourself to have a miscarriage because you got drunk and didn't know what you were doing. Well now the woman is sober and she does know what she is doing she is taking an innocent life and the mother knows. My next point is that financially you and your partner are not capable of providing a safe home for the child. To nip this in the butt you have choices to make such as give the baby to a relative and when you two are ready take the baby back or simply put the baby up for adoption. Many couples are trying to have a baby but can't and you can provide them with a healthy baby and the baby in a nice home as opposed to death the "easy" way put of this. Putting the baby up for adoption would be the best possible choice because you and your partner will feel happy knowing that your baby will be safe, have a happy life, and you won't have to live with the fact that you didn't have to kill your first born similar to what Abraham almost had to do with Isaac. The next best thing to do is give your baby up to a close family member because than you could know for certain that the baby is perfectly fine. One can go across town and visit the baby when ever the couple wanted to and the family will still remain close. One of my last points in which I will defiantly expand on later is the fact that women get postpartum depression. Imagine a woman who keeps her child but still feels depressed now compare her to a woman who was three months pregnant and is having her baby removed from her by unnatural causes the mother and the baby obviously will be negatively effected. With therapy a woman with a naturally born baby will recover from her experience but how do we know for certain that the mother who aborted her baby will ever recover? We don't, women are very emotional and in this situation a man will be emotional too little things will remind her of what she has done and it won't be pretty. The woman could go back to her old ways of partying or start abusing drugs or crying her eyes out every minute or something to fill up the void. My major idea that I am trying to portray is the fact that this baby you didn't plan to have is an innocent life and I don't want to see the baby be put at harm for something two horny teenagers didn't take it serious enough and risked the life of someone else.

Here is my counter argument 1. Women have sex knowing that there is a risk of getting pregnant. If they don't want to have a child, then they should not have sex. -Refer to my point 19 (19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse.) -Refer to my point 22 (Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby?) -Refer to point 24 (Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive.) -It is the right of every woman to make choice as regards their bodies & when they want to have children. What of women's rights -Shall we then blame women for being biological the sex that has to bear children. -It is mainly because of man who do not want to take responsibility for the actions that many woman are forced to have abortions -A child is the product of sex between two people so you mean to say you are okay with man who go about impregnating woman and not taking responsibility 2. If the fetus is beyond 23 weeks, it can feel pain. -If thats the case then lets make abortion legal for pregnancies less than 23 weeks, which i think is the law. So we agree abortion should be legal. The question is upto how many weeks should abortion be considered legal 3. Abortions cause phycological damage -I assume you meant "physiological damage" -If abortion is done by qualified medical practitioners following the medical guidelines, research actually shows that there is a greater chance of dying from pregnancy than from dying from an abortion -the problem is the back-door abortion centers, these are mostly caused by making abortion illegal or too costly for the poor to access. 3. On teenage pregnancies. Here are 5 facts (a) Teenagers are having more sex than before (b) Teenagers are having more unprotected sex than protected sex (c) As a result teenagers are having more teenage pregnancies (d) As a result teenagers are having more children than before (e) As a result teenagers are having more abortions than before -So in addition to giving teenagers more sex education, we also need to provide them with legal & safe ways to have abortions as opposed to unsafe & illegal abortions. -If we make abortions illegal, teenagers will have more children -If we have abortions legal they will have less children -This affects their prospects in life for being financially free of dependance and being financially secluded Fewer rounds for debate ensures that each person makes a solid case. The next round is the last one so please provide all your rebuttals


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The prohibition of abortion should not be considered, for several reasons: first, when the mother's health is at risk; second, if the mother has medical conditions that could worsen with pregnancy; third, if the fetus is diagnosed with severe disabilities that would cause suffering. In scenarios where two lives are interconnected, there should be room for choice. I advocate for abortion to be safe, legal, and a measure of last resort. Moreover, it is inhumane to compel young girls, rape survivors, or victims of domestic abuse to carry a pregnancy to term.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy regardless of how far along they are in their pregnancy. Rights are not dictated by whether or not a person is pregnant. And they certainly are not revocable simply because a person is in a particular trimester. Rights are lifelong and inalienable without due process. And being pregnant is not a crime - you do not lose any of your rights just because you are with child. My opponent makes the claim that sometimes an infants rights should be prioritized. However, under the law ALL persons shall have equal rights. Infants should NOT be afforded special rights over another person simply because they are infants. To give them priority would be in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 and legally binding to all countries of the United Nations. Next, my opponent says that the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. This is both demonstrably false and also irrelevant to an infants rights taking priority over the mothers. The CDC estimates that 49% of pregnancies are unintended. And merely being pregnant does not mean that you are "assuming risk." A woman does not wave her rights merely because she is pregnant nor does she enter into a contractual arrangement to continue being pregnant. A woman has full rights over the use of her own body at all times. Another person does not have ANY rights over the use of her body at any time. The fetus has the right to life. But it does not have the right to life by violating another persons rights. If a pregnancy is terminated after 20-22 weeks it is not an abortion. Its a premature birth. And at that time the care and well being of the child is transferred to the state. The state cannot force you to look after the well being of the child after birth . . . nor can the state do so before birth. In closing, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we as a society do recognize infants have person hood. What we don't recognize is that one persons rights should be prioritized over another persons rights.

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

Okay, my position is simple, and from your profile, i can see you're against it. My position is that women should be allowed abortions without any conditions before the second trimester of pregnancy, and should be allowed after second trimester if it is in the physical health interests of the mother.

Abortion should be the mothers choice. 1) By taking away the mothers right to decide you take away yet another little bit of her freedom. 2) Not to mention all the exeptions such as rape victims. Are you going to tell the poor girl who got pregnant from some scum of the Earth that she has to keep his child?

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