Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The legalization of abortion is a contentious issue, but there are compelling reasons to support its legality. Here, I present three arguments in favor of legal abortion: (1) the right to bodily autonomy, (2) the prevention of unsafe, back-alley abortions, and (3) the reduction of unwanted children.

First, pregnant individuals have a right to abortion based on the principle of autonomy. Governments should not restrict personal choices unless there is direct harm to others. According to John Stuart Mill, the only legitimate reason for state intervention is to prevent harm to others. Since fetuses are not conscious until the 25th week of pregnancy, they cannot feel mental states, and thus, the right of pregnant individuals to control their bodies and defend themselves against psychological harm outweighs any rights attributed to the fetus.

Second, legal abortion prevents the occurrence of dangerous back-alley abortions. When abortion is illegal, desperate individuals turn to harmful, unregulated methods, leading to an increase in abortion-related maternal mortalities. Legal abortion ensures that the procedure is conducted safely in licensed clinics, thereby saving lives.

Third, bans on abortion lead to an increase in unwanted children. Adoption is not a sufficient solution for the number of children born as a result of unwanted pregnancies. These children face significant challenges, including a higher likelihood of death at an early age, economic and psychological disadvantages, and lower educational achievements. The presence of unwanted children also harms the parents, who may face psychological problems, unemployment, and poverty.

In conclusion, legal abortion respects the autonomy of pregnant individuals, prevents dangerous back-alley abortions, and reduces the number of unwanted children. These benefits support the argument for the legalization of abortion.

Sources: Adapted from the original debate text.

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 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............

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

I thank Con for his response, and after a review of his 2nd round, I see no compelling reason to justify the illegality of abortion considering the issue of maternal death. Con opens with a justification for the illegality of abortion by citing post abortion depression. As support, Con links an article from the American Spectator by an author who champions pro life positions. Mr. Allot has many articles supporting his anti abortion stance in a variety of conservative news publicans. I would love to see the study he references, but he does not provide a source. Some anti abortion sites list the report in the same vague terms as Mr. Allot, but they do not link it or give me any information so I can examine it myself. These sites seem to be echo chambers. At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible. In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine contends that much of the information concerning post abortion depression is not supported by scientific research. http://www.nejm.org... And will serve to disrupt the doctor/patient relationship. Even if Con and Mr. Allot can show that abortion may result in post abortion depression, neither addresses the situation that is the basis for my position – maternal death. I need only show one case where an abortion is less risky than a full term pregnancy. I can. Just this year peer reviewed research as shown that abortion is much less risky than childbirth. Here is the Reuters article. http://www.reuters.com... And you can see the journal is linked at the bottom so you can at least read the abstract or check out the issue at the library. http://journals.lww.com... In light of peer reviewed research, I submit that an abortion, in general, is much safer than childbirth in some cases; therefore, Pro's contention concerning post abortion depression is not supported. Con's contentions concerning maternal death rates: Con agrees that complications occur during pregnancy and supports equal access to healthcare – we can agree here but he does wish to note that women referenced in the Amnesty article want to have a baby. I cannot see this distinction, nor do I find it relevant so I see no need to discuss it until Con can show why it is important Adoption: Adoption may be a valid option for some women, but doesn't address the issue at hand (maternal death). Adoption may be a better choice for some mothers, but in light of the current situation concerning the mortality rate in childbirth; it certainly isn't the best choice for everyone. Please remember, Con, that your resolution is absolute and no woman will have a choice when it comes to her own reproductive health. At this point, Con has not adequately dealt with the problem presented by maternal death.

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

I wish this to be a fair and great debate! To reiterate, I will be arguing the following statement: "Abortion should remain legal in the United States. " With that, I will clarify the conditions of my contention. I am arguing that any abortion restrictions and laws should remain as they are, withno suggested changes or additions. I am arguing that current abortion regulations need to stay the way they are. This means that my contention also suggests that abortionshould not be outlawed, and thatother forms of abortion should not be made legal if not already. This is an important part of my argument. Also, while my personal views on abortion are varied, I still argue my statement because I know it is the best for society. I encourage any readers and also the Con to take an unbiased approach to reading and taking part in this debate. Now, my first argument: I: Women have the right to choose what to do withtheir body It is a known fact and idea, that everyone is entitled to the right to choose. To choose what brand of food they wish to buy from the store, or what color to die their hair. We also have the right to choose on decisions that have to do with our bodies. In a life or death situation for another person, legally, you have the right to choose whether you want to donate the means to save that person's life (without legal consequences). [1] In the same way, we are also entitled to choice when it comes to things that have immediate or prolonged consequences, such as committing a crime or doing drugs. Stretching that idea out, women have the right to have an abortion, as it is a part of their body. We know this because the society we live in is all based off of the free choice of Americans. At the current standards, a woman seeking an abortion goes through many steps to actually terminate her pregnancy. Depending on the state, some are required to go through counseling, and permission from a parent (in minors) or a doctor-- however, all over America, women seeking an abortion go through the shaming of society of their decision, while still making the decision to terminate their pregnancy. [2] We know that a lot of things are being done to deter that choice, but like a good and civilized society,we still allow those women to have their freedom of choice. II: Personhood doesn't begin until viability After arguing the reasoning as to why women undoubtedly have the right to their own body, the question still remains: when do fetuses have the right to their own body? It is a known fact, in science and in the law, that life in the womb begins when the fetus is capable of living on its own. When is this? ". .20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. "[3] So generally, fetuses are more than likely to be considered viable at 26-27 weeks, and in the most rare cases, maybe 23 weeks. A vast majority of states ban abortions after 20 weeks, while some even ban abortions after12 weeks. [4] Abortion isn't even legal while the fetus is considered viable! So, if the fetus is not yet its own person, not yet capable of even surviving outside of the womb, then it is assumed that everything is indeed a part of the woman's body. This means until the fetus has reached personhood, women have the right to choose what to do withtheir body. This means that if abortion is only legal while the fetus is not capable of living on its own, then abortion isnot an illegal practice, and should remain a legal option to women in early stages of pregnancy. III: Completely enforcing anti-abortion laws is impossibleLet's assume just momentarily that abortion was banned everywhere. In a situation where Congress easily passed legislation that prevented women from getting abortions in any conditions, and no other country in the world provided legal options to terminate a pregnancy. This would still not prevent abortions from occurring. Women seeking an abortion for whatever reason, are more than likely still going to get an abortion in whatever way possible, despite it being illegal. People argue all the time, "If you make guns illegal, people are still going to get guns, just illegally. " This is a true statement that has just as much truth when it comes to abortions. You just simply can't forbid a woman from terminating her pregnancy and hope that laws and regulations are going to act as a deterrent in a world like that. This leads to my next argument; IV: The risk of illegal abortionsThis is my last and most important argument. In that country where no woman could legally get an abortion, they will find a way to get one should their situation be that desperate. This will lead to illegal abortions, which are not safe at all. When a person that decides they cannot have a baby for social or financial reasons, and they are determined that they do not have the means to bring a child into the world, then they will also be determined to end that pregnancy in anyway possible. This is a sad but absolutely true statement. Illegal abortions took place in the so called back-alleys, and they were not safe or something anyone wanted to think about. Before Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions were done in many terrible ways, some of which including coat hangers, illegal drugs, knitting needles or even a punch to the stomach. These methods were unsafe, and led to many women dying as a result of it. The statistics are saddening. [5]It has been wisely said, "Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of abortions, but rather the end of women dying because of them. "This is my strongest and main argument to keeping abortion legal in the United States. Abortion needs to remain to be a legal option for women, as it is their choice, and it is not up to anyone else. Whether we disagree with their decisions or not, certified abortion clinics should remain to be legally open to any women in any circumstances. [1]. https://www.academia.edu... [2] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.prochoiceamerica.org...[5] . https://www.guttmacher.org...

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

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.

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

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


Question: Should the Option for Abortion be Legally Available?

Abortion should remain legal in the United States, but the debate over its legality is complex and multifaceted. One argument against legal abortion is that it is about ending a human life. However, this argument fails to consider the scientific understanding of what makes a being human. A zygote, while having human DNA, does not have the same level of development or consciousness as a born human being. The argument that a zygote is human because it has human DNA is flawed, as many humans without all their senses are still considered human.

Another argument against abortion is that it is necessary to save the mother's life. However, statistics show that the number of abortions performed to save the mother's life is extremely small, and many cases where abortion is performed for the health of the mother are not life-threatening. The global death rate among pregnant women does not accurately represent the US death rate, and the numbers in the US show that the risk of death from pregnancy is much lower than from other activities such as owning a house or standing. The argument that women need abortion to save their lives does not stand up to scrutiny, and the number of babies who would wrongly die under misuse of the allowance for abortion would outweigh the appropriate use of such an allowance.

Rape and incest are also cited as reasons for legal abortion, but these cases only account for a small percentage of all abortions. The cause of conception does not revoke a baby's human rights, and the idea that most rape victims will want or need an abortion is not supported by studies. Adoption is a better alternative for cases of poverty, being too young, or other issues, and the number of children who would need to be adopted if all cases of abortion were fixed through adoption would be less than 12,000 per year, a small increase compared to the number of adoptions already taking place.

The right to choose is also a key argument for legal abortion, but the idea that a mother has the right to determine the value of her child and whether it has the right to live goes against the Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The worth of a child is not determined by how much its mother wants it, and the idea that a mother's choice exceeds the rights granted by these documents is flawed.

In conclusion, the argument against legal abortion is based on fallacies and unsupported claims. The number of abortions performed to save the mother's life is too small to justify the number of babies who would wrongly die under misuse of the allowance for abortion. Rape and

Even if a process is illegal or restricted to far some women who are desperate will still travel to have undergo the process or at the worst go for a back street abortion. For example abortion being illegal in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has forced a large amount of women travelling to the UK to seek a termination. [[Abortion Rights "Ireland's Hidden Diaspora" http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/308/118/ Accessed 5.06.09]] At worst a person will seek a back street abortion something that has left to the lives of women being lost or damaged because of injuries due to complications resulting from an abortion.

There is a peculiar double standard being applied by opponents of abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified, while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly ignored and even trampled. This is particularly concerning when more men appear to support abortion than woman; it appears that men are more willing to trample the child-bearer (a woman) than the child.

Prior to any refutation, we raise a red flag concerning Opposition's sources. The first one doesn't contain the words "hematometra" nor "suicide" at all; the second one throws a 404 error. Sadly, that's the case with most Canada's sources. We had to look up the "large-scale Scandinavian study"[[http://tinyurl.com/37m5ugb]]: it was only done in Finland, where on-demand abortion is illegal[[http://tinyurl.com/39tbdf]], on a sample of 73 women in 1987-1994 - and finds that women who aborted are more likely to commit suicide, which is very far from proving anything at all, let alone debunking the "myth that childbirth is more risky than abortion". "Acute hematometra" has a 0.1 - 1 % incidence, and is no "immense risk"[[http://tinyurl.com/37xkn9w]]; moreover, breast cancer is not linked to abortion at all, as WHO[[http://tinyurl.com/3xymzd5]] and other organizations[[http://tinyurl.com/36yvp5n]] concede. As for depression, in a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses,"[[http://tinyurl.com/25c4qpc]] confirming the findings again in 2008[[http://tinyurl.com/39f9pyx]]. As a matter of fact, the most frequent emotion of mothers following abortion is relief[[http://tinyurl.com/398eknh]]. In contrast, risks of death in childbirth, especially for young mothers, are 24 times greater[[http://tinyurl.com/3yefvge]]; plus, we have already explained that damages of carrying baby to term - which 70 % mothers denied consent will do![[http://tinyurl.com/2uwvx8n]] - for both her and her baby. As this argument relied on assertion that parents can make a better cost-benefit analysis of abortion, and we proved that abortion has lower risks than anything else - why grant veto to allow for an irrational choice? Consent law is only good for misuse and that we reject.

| In cases where the rape victims cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favour. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault their underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Moreover pregnancy might even affect the health and growth of the young girls. Besides, babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".

A line on "viability" is arbitrary; from conception humans are always increasingly "viable"

Requiring parental consent will lead to a fall in the number of abortions. In Minnesota, the number of legal teenage abortions fell by 25% when this measure was introduced; in Virginia it fell by 20%. Since abortion is - quite apart from moral questions about its permissibility - physically and psychologically traumatic for mothers, especially teenage mothers, this is a good thing.

As the Prop points out, there are time constraints involved with abortion, and waiting too long can increase risks. This must, however be weighed against the necessity of carefully considering the heavy risks and other issues related to the decision to get an abortion. We hope that the Prop will agree that snap decisions are not desirable in such a case; that careful thought and counsel is necessary to offset the immense risks in even a best-case scenario. The need for judicial waiver need not, as they claim, delay matters. In fact, T. Joyce’s 2010 Arkansas study [1] suggests that teens who obtain judicial waivers have earlier abortions, not later ones. Allowing teens to make emotional decisions does not mean that we are giving them what they even want, let alone what is best for them. "Where support through counseling is offered (for example, in Sweden) to pregnant women who are not sure if they should or can carry their pregnancy to term, they are more likely not to abort." [2] This suggests that abortion may not be what they choose, but the only option they believe is available to them. The Prop seems to believe that they alone have access to the ‘real case’ of pregnant teens; we contend that this claim is flippant and unsupportable. Yes, there are parents who hold their own interests in higher regard than their children’s welfare, and parents who fail to offer their children the support they need; however, we firmly maintain that such parents are a minority. Besides, as we have already pointed out, the option of obtaining a judicial waivers is sufficient to deal with this problem. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa054047 [1] http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html#eighteen [2]

We wholeheartedly reject the Prop’s suggestion that legal abortions are safe and present a teen’s best option, and that the danger for pregnant minors is parental intervention. Admittedly, parents in our world aren’t always what we wish them to be, but we insist that they do more harm than good. The Prop has denied the immense risks associated with abortion, which stretch from acute hematometra (post-abortal syndrome) to breast cancer, infertility, and increased risk for clinical depression and suicide. [[http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics]] “A large-scale, authoritative Scandinavian study shows post-pregnancy death rates within one year that are nearly four times greater among women who abort their pregnancies than among women who bear their babies. The suicide rate is nearly six times greater among aborting women than among women who give birth. These findings refute the oft-heard claim that induced abortion is safer than childbirth.”[[http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.]] The myth that childbirth is more risky than abortion is largely based on the way that statistics about abortion-related deaths are collected: such deaths are often attributed to present problems. These are risks that parents have a right and a responsibility to evaluate for their minor children, who are by law as well as by custom the responsibility of parents. So why should abortions need consent when a decision to keep the child doesn’t? Quite simply, the nature of pregnancy in most cases necessitates parental involvement, since it is rarely kept a secret, and almost always requires emotional and material support. The law need not step in where immediacy does. In truth, each of the options, including abortion, carry with them serious and long-term risks that need to be not only carefully considered, but offset with the kind of support a parent is best able to give.

Legal abortions safer than black market abortions

Unborn life should never depend on whether it is "wanted"


Question: Should the Legality of Abortion be Upheld?

Abortion should not be prohibited under all circumstances.
However, I have a question for my opponent: is this your first debate? It appears you are new, how did you know I support abortion rights? I doubt you are a new member. The subject is: "Abortion should be illegal." My stance is against this, it should not be illegal, it should be legal. During the debate, when I refer to women seeking abortion, I will use "we." I am quite lazy but will try to avoid it for this challenge. There is no rule against presenting arguments in this round, so I will start now. Note: English is not my first language and I may make mistakes.

MY CASE:
In the opening, my opponent states that abortion results in the death of an innocent human being and cannot be justified. This implies they are against abortion in all cases without exception. My position is that "abortion should be legal," and I support allowing it at least under some conditions and situations.

REBUTTAL:
My opponent argues that "abortion results in the death of an innocent human being and cannot be justified." I ask: does this claim equate fetus to human being? I request scientific evidence or proof that a fetus equals a human being. The burden of proof lies with my opponent. I do not equate a fetus to a human being, but I will present arguments on this later. Even if the fetus is considered a human, it is still justifiable for women to have an abortion.

Anti-abortionists claim that "by having an abortion, you are KILLING the baby/human/fetus." However, we are not killing the baby or human; pregnant women help the fetus survive, and at the time of abortion, we stop the help we provide. We are not killing a baby or human; we are merely stopping the assistance. As individuals, we have the right not to help others, and you do not have the right to force us to help others. Therefore, even if the fetus is considered a human, it can still be justified since we have the right not to help others.

Does not "not allowing women to stop the help she gives" mean forcing her to do something she does not want to do? Human rights, Article 5, state that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Considering this, we cannot force a woman to carry a baby or do something against her will. At the same time, the Universal Declaration

" 1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning." Mosquitos have hearts too. Are you intending to be consistent? " 2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. " Condoms and other birth control methods are imperfect, and the day after pill argument assumes a false premise, because by the time you know an egg has been fertilized, it's already too late. The primary use of such a pill is as a last resort in the event of a bout of unprotected sex resulting from negligience or rape. It is, as a practical matter, useless for dealing with used but failed birth control methods. Further, the existence of alternative solutions is not sufficient to establish that something should be illegal. "3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions" Votes are among the worst ways of deciding things, the existence of a mob that believes x is correct is not sufficient to establish that it IS correct. I'm sure if you polled Germans about Hitler back when he was in power- oh wait, that's how he got in power. :D Also, polls conflict on the question, especially when you change the wording about. " 4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception." Fish feel pain too. Yet I still eat them. The sole purpose of the law is the protection of entities which happen to have rights. Rights are the limits of what behavior is proper toward a rational entity, if you violate them toward such an entity without them first violating yours, you increase the chance of them violating yours. This is the sole basis for rights. Fetuses, however, are not such an entity- they have not yet developed rationality. Neither, I should note, have some infants- it is not certain when rationality develops, but, evidence points to it being sometime after birth. Also, even were it true that fetuses were rational, the fact remains that if they are in your womb without permission, they are violating your rights- they are trespassing on your private property. Thus, the other condition on which rights are based (reciprocity) is violated. " I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent" No holds are barred. You may bring up anything at any time, and so shall I :D.

The reason it should be illegal is because the constitution allows the government to protect peoples right to life! If a fetus is a human then it should have the right to life! You never disproved and told me how a fetus wasn't a human. How did healthcare get into this argument? It was about abortion. Please stay on topic. I rest my case.

Sorry but I didn't read the comment section, anyhow round 2 wasn't a waste. 1 2) " 'The Declaration of Human Rights' and not 'The Declaration of People's Rights.' " o I am afraid this won't work unless people at that time this was written knew what a fetus is. o You've not addressed my points properly. You're arguing that it shouldn't be legal because some folks agree with you. May I remind you that I have the consensus on my side: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... o How did your response changed what I said ? In other words you've not yet attacked my conclusion nor my premises. 3) " This type of abortion is the one when a doctor manipulates something that should be chosen by nature and not by the person." That is a flimsy rebuttal, no offence. The nature and the doctor do the exact same thing to the fetus. Nature does what it does for one purpose while the doctor for another purpose. To the fetus there's no difference. Either both are murderers or both are right. Unless you consider nature a God. Womans Life: Has not been addressed. Are you saying that abortion should be allowed under some circumstances ? Extra arguments: 1.Abortion is practiced even if its illegal.According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them." When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics. 2.Law doesn't make something right so if abortion is wrong then it still has to be legal because this is a democratic nation hence we have to follow the consensus. However I dont think that abortion is wrong (in some circumstances) 3.The government has no right to enforce an opinion on its people if most or even many people disagree. Even if it was a fact that abortion is murder, the government is not allowed to pass a law which contradicts the consensus or even in some cases the near majority.

My adversaries response was relativity short, so I am going to keep mine pretty simple too. By the resolution and first round we can clearly see what we are debating" Abortion should be illegal"Illegal is defined as Illegal - not allowed by the law [1]So what I must do to win is show a scenario in where an abortion should legal. Is there is a circumstance that could warrant an abortion, that would mean abortion should remain legal. This is not a debate about whether abortion should be legal in (x) or not legal in (y). This is referring to the fact that abortion is murder. Premise 1 : Right to self defenseWe under US law are permitted the right to defined ourselves from bodily harm, especially in cases that could result in death. Justifiable homicide - "killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime"There are also stand your ground laws, that give you the right to kill a person in self defenseThis is even in certain state statues such as Florida" A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another" [3]Even the founding fathers thought self defense was an unalienable right. [4]You even see this in the Constitution"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of HIMSELF or the state" [5]So we can clearly see that self defense is justified by the law, even if you take another persons life. Premise 2 : There are Cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the motherAt this point the Fetus is inflicting bodily harm on the mother and threatening her life. We see this in ectopic pregnancies. Ectiopic Pregnancy - An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is life-threatening to the mother.[6]"In most pregnancies, the fertilized egg travels through the fallopian tube to the womb (uterus). Anything that blocks or slows the movement of this egg through these tubes can lead to ectopic pregnancy"[6]In addition to this fatal pregnancies occur all the time in the US. This is true in both the US and World wide. 15 percent of pregnancies result in fatal complications. [7]. Granted it is a low number but it even occurs in the US, per 100,000 births an estimated 21 deaths occur in the United States[8]. " According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2010, 3,999,386 infants were born in the United States, 3% less than in 2009. The number of births fell for nearly all races and Hispanic origin groups. The birth rate in 2010 was 13.0 per 1,000 people " [9]According to the studies provided every 100,000 births result in 21 deaths. There are an estimated 3,999,386 births that occurred in 2010 according to the CDC. Let's round that up to 4,000,000 flat4,000,000 / 100,000 = 4040 * 21 = 840 maternal deaths on a yearly basis in the United StatesWe can in fact acknowledge deaths happen in pregnancy. Granted I did round up, but even without rounding up it would be over 800. Conclusion[a] We have the right to self defense, and can defend ourselves from death and certain harm. This is promised by the constitution[b] There are pregnancies that can result in fatalities. Around 800 yearly in the US[c] If abortion were illegal, practicing abortion would be a criminal offense. [d] This would deny the mother the right to kill the fetus in extreme cases, and violate her right to self defense[e] Abortion should be legal in the United States. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.leg.state.fl.us... [4] For example, Elbridge Gerry asserted that "Self-defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish. (Emphasis added.) [Gerry, "Observations on the New Constitution, and on Federal and State Conventions," Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul Ford, p. 4.] [5] http://www2.law.ucla.edu...[6] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...[7] http://www.savethemothers.org...[8] https://www.cia.gov...[9] http://www.nichd.nih.gov...

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.

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

I'm just going to finish this by saying that there should be no law that forbids abortion. It is a matter between the two involved, and no one has the right to interfere with that.

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

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

Resolved: Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother). I will argue for the resolution Information About The Topic The landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case legalized abortion in America. Since that case in 1973, it is estimated that over 54 million abortions have taken place. Rules of Civility Attacks against the character of the other debater will not be accepted. This debate is meant to be a friendly competition that allows both debaters to expand their knowledge. Acceptance First Leave arguments for Round 2


Question: Should Pupils be Required to Don School Uniforms?

Students should be allowed to wear their own clothes and not be forced into school uniforms. We shouldn't strive for uniformity as if we're all automatons; true equality should manifest in how we treat each other. Allowing students to choose their attire provides a means of self-expression. While it's argued that uniforms improve academic performance, I'd rather see students' individuality preserved. Uniforms don't address peer pressure as effectively as claimed. If gang activity is a concern, address it directly rather than through uniform policy. Are club activities, which can also be exclusive, not similar to gangs in some respects? Enforcing uniforms won't prevent issues outside school grounds. Please consider voting against mandatory uniforms.

You didn't set a parameter in which school you mean. first i thought it's in the ELEMENTARY where prohibiting junk foods is common. That made us confuse, You should have clarify it first. Okay, It's not bad to follow the instruction given to us by our teachers because all they want for us is nothing but for our own Good. We can't say that we need to be independent because the purpose why we have the teacher is to teach us what's good and every schools has its LAW which should be followed.

Your opinion is right, But I've got another comment. I want uniforms in school. The reason why I want uniforms is because they save money. Also, you don't have to worry about finding an outfit for the next day. This is my third opinion

You may argue that PE shouldn't be mandatory because some might have trouble doing some thing in PE and feel uncomfortable around their peers, but this only happens if you set unrealistic standards for athletic performance in schools. PE should be mandatory in schools. Kids and teens in school are still growing, and going outside and being active is essential in doing this. As well as lowering risks of obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood sugar, PE allows students to bond with their classmates in an environment outside of the classroom. PE also clears your mind, and helps you release energy and calm down. If kids and teens go outside and do light exercise while having fun and making friends, it will help build good habits for the future.

For the feedback, thank you. I totally appreciate you treating this as a worthy debate. I’m enjoying it as well. Rebuttal 1 I believe you are missing the point about religion in your school, and your examples. It an example, its not making your argument that Religion should not be forced on children in school. Your just stating what happened to you and others. Even if every 2nd school had prayer, it doesn't make your argument any different that it occurs. Did you want to avoid math, and do you not use it now? Is this not the same? Rebuttal 2 You present two impossible tenants. Regardless, it doesn't support your argument, or further the debate, unless you’re going to say, your religion is allowed and your religion is not. It’s a side issue not related to the debate but problem with your overall argument, by saying one has priority of belief over another. Rebuttal 3 So we go from weak women to a possible powerful fanatic. Interesting. As for unconformable it depends where I am an what I'm doing. If it’s in the bathroom probably uncomfortable. However if anyone knocks on my door during a reasonable time, I am more then willing to debate or talk with. Again begging the question does not further your argument. You still have not made an effective argument as to why. Discomfort and objection is not rational ground for your argument. Rebuttal 4 Actually I think we both misunderstood. I took the position of North America an industrialized world, where you mean every school and public schools. However it doesn't address your question it shouldn't be forced, just that it varies what the laws are. Rebuttal 5 Your argument from bias is slightly biased. I lived with 5 gay men during university, being the only straight one in the house for a year. A friend, who is a drag queen, upon his birthday, requested we all dress in drag for a night, as his present. I look fabulous in my g/fs dress. I am not homophobic. My argument, which you seemed to miss, is that you cannot choose topics based on discomfort of the people involved. Your argument that it might offend gay people to hear that the bible says there doomed to hell is not a reason not to study the bible and its impact on history especially when it says that. Maybe if you taught it, you would have less gay Christians and more ration gay men when it came to religion. If your argument is not to teach people because it might offend them, then teaching evolution might offend Christians who believe in ID. If you choose to support gay offensive over Christian’s offense, what is your basis to choose? again this is moving your argument forward, only if you choose to have rights over another based on discomfort. This is a weak argument. My argument why religion should be forced. Why? Its a school, where else are you supposed to learn things? Home study, your friend down the street a church? It is completely acceptable to force religion into school. Teach about religion, its effects, its contradictions, its actual message (slavery, incest, bigotry) and the fact you can’t prove a god exist. It’s like not teaching about Hitler and the holocaust and ignoring that it was a Christian idea and movement (Sam Harris, letters to a Christian Nation). To wit, not a single member of the founding fathers was Christian in any sense most people apply it and the treaty of Tripoli stated that US was not a Christian nation, which was signed by the congress. Again, very few people seem to know that. If people taught it you wouldn't have Michael Bauchman repeating it and being believed by a majority of Americans. If you don’t teach history, your doomed to repeat it. Defiantly have religion in the class room, and you will have a lot less religious people in the world and a better informed public. And defiantly include ID in science, make it mandatory 1st year in high school. The more you read about what science is and the flaws of ID, the more people will stop calling it science. Show why it’s not, show how it’s not, and what science actually is. Teach the controversy. You know how you get a well-informed person on a subject, have them read about it. The bible, include it as mandatory reading. Make children (or teens) read it. All of it. Twice. Have a pop quiz of "does god promote slavery and if so how many times?" "does the god really hate gay people?" `was the bible used to justify slavery in the south, north and everywhere else?` 'given that Jesus what born in the middle east, to Jewish parents, why is it that every church you walk in, he looks like an poster child for albinos hocking sun screen?" “What day did Jesus die, Friday morning, afternoon, Saturday, Sunday or all of the above?” you’re going to have a lot more rational people if you have to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org...

you and me were in schools. I think that we both hated uniform. There are many problems with the uniform, because when we didn't wear, all teachers abused us, it affects to the psychology of youth. Furthermore, it is business, what I mean is that makers uniform sell us on high price, so not everyone can afford it. In anyway, youth want to buy other styled things, added to it they have to buy uniform. so it is bad for families who are financially lower. think of it!!!

For starters: how it can be beneficial. Well if you look at the percentage of people in school that get into fights at school because this guy is wearing these types of clothes compared to a school with a dress code the school with a dress code has a lower percentage. Also, a dress code can prevent segregation of different gangs. In any normal persons book a school with less relation to gangs is a safer school over all. Now about your point on the cost. If money is a issue which in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes. Now you brought up that people never wear it anywhere else and could use that money for food or utility bills. Now, lets clarify this a bit a dress code is completely different from a uniform. A uniform you are told what shirt is mandatory what socks is mandatory for example white or black, high or low, what color tie to wear etc... Now a dress code is a whole lot more relaxed. I wear clothes that I wear to school all the time and vise versa. So therefore the issue of money really isn't a problem and neither is the waste of clothes.

Actually, kids might be too upset because they have to wear uniforms to even focus. If you go to the link I posted above, it shows that uniforms have a negative effect on kids' school work and attendance. And like I said before, if someone wants to shoot someone bad enough, they will shoot them at another time and place if they can't do it at school.

The government has a right to make laws about dress code. My points include, but are not limited to: 1. Sagging or any gang-related clothing is unacceptable in most schools, as a schools objective should be to prepare students for the real world, and dressing for success is most important in job applications and other major life decisions. 2. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the right "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " This means that Congress can legally make laws about a public dress code. 3. For men, sagging and gang-related clothes, and for women, short skirts and lots of bare skin are considered very unprofessional. Imagine walking down the street eating your McDonald's nuggets and you see a mans boxers and butt hanging out of his pants. I don't know about you but I would lose my appetite. This is why the government should impose laws about a dress code. Not only is it beneficial for impressionable school students, but it would also provide for a more professional public society.

Thank youEvidence is only to be presented when asked forI will first be presenting my arguments, then refuting my opponent's arguments. First, some definitions. Public School- K-12 Schools run by the US federal government1. Makes people equal in the eyes of others, thus stopping bullyingSome schools when they add uniforms it changes the way the students act, for example on the kimatv news the school system in yakima started to use uniforms. After each school started to use uniforms the bullying rate when down by 50%. People may be poor or rich. Income disparity is a huge problem in today’s public school system. People are bullied and teased based on the type/condition of their clothes. With kids, there would be none of that. No one will tease or bully anyone because everyone is wearing the same uniformThe impact that will come from this discovery will be huge, this is because kids a tormented by name calling and other types of bullying everyday and it ruins their lives. Bullying can cause suicidal and traumatic problems which is detrimental to students. 2. Stops Inappropriate clothes to be worn to schoolCEPI says that uniforms stops gang colors This is good because gangs won’t be able to communicate thus keeping gangs from committing crimesThe Impact is that because gangs won’t communicate, they can’t commit crimes making the world a better place Less people die from gang related crimes, saving lots of lives3. Kids can be readily identified in outside activitiesIn a field Trip, if the whole school is wearing a uniform, then if the kid wanders off, the teacher will recognize him/her in a huge crowd because of his/her clothes. US Department of Education says that the uniforms can help teachers identify their students easier. This will keep the students from getting lost and thus keeping them safe. If the school has uniforms, then the kids will be safe. They cannot wander off and get into trouble or danger. This is especially beneficial for younger kids. Now, to my opponent's arguments My opponent talks about how it violates rights. However, some things, you need to give up for a better life. I would rather feel safe and give up a few rights. In fact, I would rather stay alive instead of dead with the ability to express myself. Obviously, life is much more important than the right to express oneself. Limiting the right to express oneself is not going to kill every child in the US.

On average a mid-class school uniform would be around $85. Plus an additional one. How can a child feel special and different if every other kid is wearing the same thing. It can very much effect the child social and learning environment. And when you said that 'what if there was a major accident and a kid was lost? How would you identify him?' i completely agree with that statement. If a child is lost how easy will it be to identify one kid if hundreds of other kids are wearing the exactly same attire. And you very much need to express yourself through clothing. Its a right and helps develop fundamental social skills. In what way would you have the uneducated conclusion that it can prevent bullying. Explain.