Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Without a Prescription?

Access to Contraceptives

I am of the opinion that birth control pills should be accessible over the counter without the need for parental approval. When a young woman seeks to use contraception, she is demonstrating maturity and responsibility, and it is her personal right, not her parents', to decide whether to engage in sexual activity. If an individual is making the choice to be sexually active, they should also be mature enough to choose to be safe. Moreover, most adolescents will engage in sexual activity if they so desire, regardless of whether they have access to protection or not. Therefore, it is better to err on the side of caution and ensure that they have the means to protect themselves.

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

Thank you for accepting.I want to apologize for how long it took me to post this argument. Due to many computer glitches, chief among them a fatal bug that caused my computer to crash whenever I logged onto this site, I couldn't post the argument until now. I'm using a different browser, which was the reason for the crash, so the problem shouldn't repeat itself. Onto the debate.I’d like to start off with some facts.Facts:1. Birth rates are declining [1] and the reasons are varied2. The US has the highest teen birth rate in the industrial world [1]3. Within the US, the states with the highest teen birth rates are the states that mandate abstinence only education, stress it, or don’t teach sex ed at all. [2][3]4. A federal report on abstinence only programs has shown that they have failed to discourage teen sexuality [4]5. A University of Washington study has shown that comprehensive sex ed can reduce teen pregnancy rates. [5]6. The prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until the mid-20’s, while the limbic system is fully functional during adolescence.[6][7]Birth rates in general, as well teen birth rates, are decliningThis is something I feel I must point out early on, since most of my argument uses teen birth rates as a measure. I decided to use teen pregnancy and birth rates because pregnancies more aptly describe the cost of a lack of comprehensive sex ed than do STD’s. Across the industrialized world, fertility rates have been declining [1]. The reasons for the decline are many and varied, but the studies I have read point to more widespread use of contraception [1][5], increased educational opportunities for women, and increased age of first birth [1]. Keep in mind this trend is localized to rich, industrialized nations, not just the US. In many of these countries, comprehensive sex ed and easy access to contraceptives are the norm. The US has the highest teen birth rate of all rich, industrialized nationsThe US teen birth rate is far higher than any other developed nation in the world(52.8 at the time of study). It is nearly double that of the UK(30.2), which has the second highest rate of teen births. (The metric being used is Births to women aged below 20 per 1000)[1]. There is clearly something that sets the US apart from the other nations in this study. That something is an insistence on teaching abstinence in place of comprehensive sex ed, even though multiple studies have shown that it is ineffective in reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates[4][5]. Abstinence only sex ed may even increase the likelihood of teens engaging in vaginal intercourse [5], although the numbers are not as solid.Within the US, teen pregnancy rates are highest in those states that teach abstinence as part of their curriculumThe states with the top ten teen pregnancy rates (New Mexico, Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Georgia) teach abstinence in place of contraceptive based sex ed [2][3]. However, the causes of teen pregnancy cannot be attributed simply to a lack of comprehensive sex ed. Teen pregnancy and birth rates are varied widely across demographics, with poor urban and rural teens having the highest rates of pregnancy and birth. In America, the rates between ethnicities vary greatly, with African American and non-white Hispanic teens having the highest pregnancy rates and birth rates. A federal report has shown that abstinence only sex education has failed in its primary purpose of promoting sexual abstinence, and a University of Washington study backs this up.A report commissioned by the Health and Human Services department in 2007 found that abstinence only teachings had “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence” [4]. Many other factors, including participation in high risk activities and age of first intercourse, were almost identical as well between the experimental and control groups [4]. The University of Washington report found teens who received a comprehensive sex education were “sixty percent less likely to get pregnant or get someone pregnant” than those who didn’t [5]. The lead author of University of Washington report concluded that abstinence only education has no impact on teen sexual activity or pregnancy rates [5]. Multiple scientific studies have been conducted and nearly all of them have found that abstinence only teachings are woefully ineffective and possibly counterproductive. And yet many advocacy groups continue to push abstinence based teachings, framing their arguments around preserving family values and the nuclear family. There are also the thinly veiled religious overtones in many of the advocacy groups I have found that support abstinence only based programs. The prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until the mid-20s, while the limbic system is fully functional during adolescence.While initially this fact may seem like it is out of place, it is a central point to my argument and explains why adolescents in particular are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. The prefrontal cortex is part of the frontal lobe; it is actually the very front of our brain and lies directly behind the forehead. This is the part of the brain involved in weighing outcomes, forming judgments, and controlling impulses and emotions [7]. It is also the very last part of the brain to fully develop, and usually stops developing during the mid-20s. The limbic system, the system responsible for emotional connections to other parts of the brain, is hardwired to register pleasure and pain in regards to high risk activities. It is fully developed in the early adolescent years [6]. The fully developed and functioning limbic system combined with an undeveloped or underdeveloped prefrontal cortex leads to pleasure and thrill seeking activities with little grasp on possible consequences. This combination is troublesome enough on its own, but becomes even more problematic when drugs, alcohol, and sexuality are added to the equation. When confronted with the choice of having sexual intercourse, one of the most biologically pleasurable acts known to man, and waiting years until marriage, sex will invariably win out in all but the strongest willed or most rational teens. Even when they are aware of the risks, teens will frequently choose the act that is pleasurable now as opposed to worrying about the vague consequences of STDs and pregnancy, neither of which are guaranteed and both of which are dealt with in the future [6][7]. The conclusion drawn from this is that no matter what we do or say, teens will have sex before marriage. It’s inevitable, and we have a duty to make sure that they practice safe sex.To sum it upIn conclusion, comprehensive sex education is the only reasonable course of action if we want to prevent and reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. I will concede that abstinence is the best way to truly prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Condoms and other contraceptives do fail, and nothing can be guaranteed to work correctly 100% of the time. But while abstinence is the best option, it is almost completely unfeasible. We live in a highly sexualized society where there is constant social and cultural pressure on teens to have sex, and often. Don’t believe me? Then you’ve been living under a rock. I don’t want to be harsh, but this is a serious problem: very few things are as dangerous as a lack of knowledge. HIV is one the most destructive and insidious diseases known to man; it spreads rapidly, mutates at a freakish rate, and is virtually impossible to cure. The best way to never become infected with HIV is to never have sex, ever. But sex is a powerful biological drive, even if you don’t ever want to have children. The best way to reasonably prevent the spread of HIV is with condoms. While they are not 100% effective (nothing ever is), something that works 95% percent of the time is infinitely better than a straight gamble. Pregnancy is the same way; would you rather flip a coin or be 95% confident in your decision? Comprehensive sex education is the most reasonable option. Abstinence does not work for the majority of American adolescents.Sources http://www.unicef-irc.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.siecus.org... http://www.mathematica-mpr.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://suite101.com... http://science.howstuffworks.com...

it is because of the peer pressure in teens lives with school, media, and music that they are having sex in the first place we all no that teens(not all ) are having sex and no matter how much the parents want to stop it teens will always be disobeying their parents. Additionally, most of pregnancies occur to unwed teen mothers. This means that even though most teens do not want to become pregnant, they are still becoming so as a result of sexual activity. While actual force to have sex is rare, many teenage girls (especially those under the age of 15) feel pressured to have sex. And, of course, the more intercourse a teenager has, the more likely it is that a teen pregnancy will eventually result. It's undeniable that kids today are maturing and growing up faster. Whether this is due to media influence or something in the meat they're eating, there is a definite sexual energy that permeates America's youth. And young teens are going to do what they do best: being sneaky and getting what they want. Three of Portland, Maine's middle schools have had a total of 17 reported pregnancies, a number that doesn't necessarily reflect any abortions or miscarriages. Whether because of outside influences or of their own accord, these students are exploring sexual avenues, and they are likely unaware of what can happen. Not all kids are comfortable approaching their parents about bodily and emotional changes. If a school can provide that service for free and guide them down a healthy path to the future, then allow that program to flourish. This won't be an enabler for kids who have already made their choice - it's going to protect them. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a report this week indicating a increase in teen birth rates for the first time in 14 years sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many — 62% — said they believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage pregnancies. (80%) of teens who have sex get pregnant unexpectedly Even though the use of contraceptives has increased among teenagers, its use remains spotty. Teens may use birth control to help prevent teen pregnancy, but most do not use contraceptives consistently. Erratic contraceptive use, however, is better than none. A sexually active teen that does not use any birth control has a 90 percent chance of becoming pregnant within a year.

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

Here's one for the Conservatives ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Jefferson once said, "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. " Today, the manufacturing, buying, posession and distribution of psilocybin mushrooms is illegal in all but 2 states: Florida and New Mexico. I support the legalization of this drug for several reasons: 1. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " yet the law disregards one's right to utilize the effects of mushrooms to enhance/practice their religious beliefs. 2. In addition to religious freedoms, individuals in the United States should have the right to ingest anything of their choosing - especially if it is not a narcotic or the chemical composition of the drug is natural. That is to say, mushrooms are grown wild in the enviornment and if people want to pick them and eat them and/or give some to their friends, that should not be a crime. 3. Mushrooms are not addictive either physically or psychologically. If continued mushrooms use is excessive within a short period of time, a tolerance will build giving the drug little to no effect anyway. Additionally, studies show that one's desire to ingest "magic" mushrooms decreases over time. 4. Mushrooms were legal in the U. S. until 1968, and the world was just fine prior to that year while they were still legal. Thus we can assume that there will not be incredibly dramatic, awful consequences for the legalization of mushrooms. 5. Safety: Mushrooms are realtively safe drugs. The toxicity is one and a half times that of caffeine, and the mortality rate as a result of mushroom's toxicity is an incredibly low 0.016%. 6. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine conducted a study regarding magic mushrooms. 61% of subjects reported a "complete mystical experience" while being under the mushroom's effects (which lasts 2 - 12 hours; usually between 4 - 8). Two months after using psilocybin mushrooms, 79% of the participants reported moderately to greatly increased life satisfaction and sense of well-being. Further, the "bad trips" that can result from usage were reported to be easily managed by the researchers and did not have a lasting negative effect on the subject's sense of well-being. 7. As with all illegal drugs, legalization of a controlled substance would eliminate the black market buying and selling of drugs which would in turn reduce the number of criminals in this country. I understand why not all drugs can or should be legal, however, mushrooms is not one of them. 8. It is wrong to compare individuals who take magic mushrooms with hardened drug addicts. Not only are the effects of mushrooms much different from other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin or meth, but mushrooms are also less addictive and less harmful to the body in both the long and short term. 9. Additionally, consider the positive effects mushrooms have on individuals (spiritual enlightenment, euphoria, etc. ). Most people who are 'high' on mushrooms do not feel compelled to put the lives of others in danger or at risk by, say, driving a car while under the influence, or acting violently towards another individual. Rather people who use mushrooms report feeling closer with nature and want to be outdoors. If not, they're enjoying closed or open-eyed visuals and are more concerned/distracted by what they're seeing and feeling internally than the desire to venture out and hurt others. This is not my opinion but rather documented in various studies/reports of individuals who are familiar with the use of entheogens. 10. Finally, of course being under the influence of any drug (including caffeine and cold medicine) has the ability to alter one's actions and reactions. This should not be a factor for several reasons. First, for medical reasons my little brother takes testosterone injections on a daily basis. This greatly affects his mood (he is angered more easily) yet his consumption of the drug is not illegal. If someone were to take magic mushrooms for any reason - spiritual or medical (they have been known to help with cluster headaches) - it should not be against the law. Why? Other legal drugs that are prescribed or not affect our reflexes, chemical imbalances, moods, or ability to complete tasks / reasoning. Rather than outlaw these things, our society has sought to warn (i. e. the warning to not operate automobiles after taking Nyquil) and/or educate, such as via D. A. R. E. programs or groups like M. A. D. D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). I believe that like alcohol, if people are educated regarding the effects of mushrooms, they can make better decisions that would eliminate or highly prevent consumption from interfering with the lives of others and causing disaster. Similarly, just as it is socially accepted (and promoted) for there to be a 'sober force' with an individual(s) who has been drinking, for example, a similar concept can be attributed to the consumption of shrooms. In conclusion, just one of those arguments is reason enough to support the legalization of mushrooms, however, I have provided 10. For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must argue that mushrooms should not be legal and why. Their reasoning should outnumber and/or outweigh my arguments. Because my points are mostly rooted in fact, Con would have to negate those facts in order for their case to be valid.

Hello Ariesx. I would first like to put out my stance on abortion. While I do believe that, after a certain time, abortion is a killing of a baby, and I have moral problems with that, I also believe in a woman's right to an abortion. First, who said the woman or the man wanted the child. Perhaps she was raped. Perhaps she was drunk. Perhaps a condom broke. In any of following cases, she could simply take an emergency contraception pill (aka morning after pill) and only kill the zygote, which won't necessarily become a baby. After all, according to pro-lifers own numbers, 2 zygotes of 100 women on birth control will die, compared to 6 out of 100 women's not on birth control. Source: http://www.patheos.com... 2. Killing a baby BEFORE its gaining of consciousness could be better than letting it live. For example, if it is apparent that the baby has a serious (and incurable) heart disease that will kill it within hours of its birth, why do we let it live? So it can die a painful death? 3. Some animals, such as geladas (a horrifying monkey species) have built in abortion systems. There is something known as a Bruce Effect observed in geladas. The Bruce Effect is when a new male takes over a gelada tribe, femalea bearing the old alpha's children will abort. Voluntarily. Now, I am not saying you are a theist (note the space and use of a not an), but if you are a theist and Christian, God wouldn't have created aborting animals if He didn't like abortion. If you were to analyze it non-theistically, why would abortion be so wrong if other species abort naturally, but it is WRONG for HUMANS to abort? Sources: http://io9.com... Thank you and good luck.

First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012

According to this reasoning, only non-virgins should be allowed to have sex (hence eventually no one would and our species would die out).Not only that, but only people who sell ice cream should be entitled to purchase ice cream.In actual fact only artists should be entitled to visit a gallery and only musicians should be able to hear the latest hits.This is an entirely impractical and unfeasible principle for a society to be based on and thus is negated on grounds of impossibility.

I say NO it should not be legal, i only see it able to be legal is if it's Rape, Other then that it was their choice to have sex, and they know the consequences of that action/s .

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


Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Without a Prescription?

Access to Birth Control Pills

I appreciate your viewpoint, and I concur that young women should ideally have open discussions with their parents about accessing birth control. However, in scenarios where parental permission is not forthcoming, I firmly believe that a young woman should have the autonomy to obtain birth control independently. When a young woman seeks birth control, it often indicates that she is either sexually active or anticipates becoming so, regardless of parental approval. Allowing her access to birth control significantly reduces the risk of unintended pregnancy, a decision I believe is her fundamental right. If one argues that parental consent is necessary, at what age does this requirement cease to apply, perhaps at 18?

This response maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original document while preserving its relationship to the question. It rephrases the document to generate a semantically similar document that aligns with the guidelines provided.

I suspect you are in a minority, then. In fact, I doubt you even really believe it yourself. Do you honestly think you shouldn't be allowed to live just because you will be a 'burden' to your parents? Is your life worth less than your parents having to work a little harder to support you? Do you value your life that little? Here is the testimony of a women who was conceived by rape, and still leads a wonderful life, with three children of her own- http://www.righttoliferoch.org... . If a women feels she can't provide for the child, she can put it up for adoption. The sad fact is, many women do have abortion for trivial reasons. Sometimes, they even use it as a form of contraception. Having one every time they get pregnant.

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

Many of the reasons as to why I should be the winner of this debate are almost too self-explanatory, so I'll try to make this quick.Conduct Vote: You, the judges, will give me the conduct vote with the consideration that my opponent has forfeited the final round of this debate, and I have been completely punctual to this debate to the very end of it. Observation 2: Since my opponent made no attempt to argue against my observations, they're completely extended across the flow, and when we analyze the entirety of my opponent's case, we realize that he has done absolutely nothing in order to uphold the burdens of his case. I have shown you through my evidence as to why this law is infeasible, impractical, and has no sort of moral justifications in the context of philosophy whereas my opponent hasn't even given you a shred of evidence to make you believe that anything that he's saying is right. Human Rights: My opponent is totally conflicted about human rights. He said earlier that it was fine to limit the slightly but then became a staunch advocate of these said rights, which contradicts his earlier statements. He talks about how children would be better off with this law in the future, but again, he has provided no evidence that it will be functional, and then under the scenario where even under this law where a girl gets pregnant before marriage, my opponent's world would not like to provide any sort of remediation in order to solve the problem.Gay rights: Then, the argumentation of gay rights also shows you the inequality of the law because at the point where gays cannot get married everywhere and have no interest in getting married with the members of the opposite sex, there's no way for gay people to have sex amongst the members of the same sex. This law is completely discriminatory against LGBT groups.

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

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

Preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies is not a reason for masturbation over sex, given my opponent's statements on contraception. If promoting sexual responsibility is what he wants, he should not discourage contraception. I would very much like to see the study that says all medical experts agree with my opponent's claim. Just because something is unhealthy does not mean it should be illegal. That is absurd. My opponent has not responded to several of my claims. I will consider them conceded unless he responds in the final round.

Whoa...750 characters. Should have noticed that. I'll keep this brief. I pose a question to the audience. If your parents hadn't wanted you, would you still want to have been born? Of course; just because you are the product of unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean you can't lead a happy, full life. It is absurd to suggest that if abortion is even being considered it should be done. What if the women is just suffering nerves and would actually bring up the child well? What you haven't considered is that if an abortion is taking, place, life has already been created. You aren't preventing life, you are destroying it. You are talking about contraception, not abortion. A foetus is most definitely alive.

Argument Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Women should be able to have an abortion if they are too young and unable to take care their babies. And the right to have an abortion if the pregnency negatively affects the women's or the babies's health. It is women's right to make decisions about their own bodies. Having control over their own bodies is an important part of the equal rights that women have fount for. According to socialistworker, Women have the right to control their own body and reproductive lives. Therefore, no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her body. This view is shared by the United States Supreme Court who ruled in the 1973 case "Roe Vs. Wade" that women have the right to control their own bodies. Since 1973 the Supreme Court has never over ruled this decision. Another reason that women should be able to have abortions is in case the mothers are too young and unable to take care their babies. Unwanted pregnancies can be very stressful for women. Therefore, if they think they can not give their babies a good life then it is right for them to have abortions. For example, one of my friends was pregnant when she was 19. She and her baby's father were still in college by that time. Neither had a job, and they knew that they could not afford to buy food and provided medical care for their baby. My friend got an abortion, even though it was the hardest decision of her life. She knew that it would be better, however, for her own life and because she could not properly take care of the baby. Critics of abortion say stopping a fetus's life is wrong. But if the babies health is at question during the pregnacy a woman should have the right to choose for herself. The reason is I believe that continuing a dangerous pregnacy will put a woman in a dangerous situation and will bring the baby into a life of sickness. In pre-pregnancy diabetes raises risk of birth defects, Donya (2008) report that " Women diagnosed with diabetes before they become pregnant are three times to four times more likely to give birth to a child with one or even multiple birth defects than a non diabetic mother, according to a study in the Aug. 1 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology ". If a woman gets pregnant and she has a history of heart disease then continuing the pregnancy would put both her and her baby at risk. A woman with a history of heart disease should avoid pregnancy because of the the high risk of death or she will give birth to a baby with birth defects. Therefore, it is right if a woman chooses to get abortion in this case. Advocates of abortion believe that death is harmful for the fetus and the fetus has the right to have a life just like ours. One advocate of abortion is Stone. For Stone, " death seriously harms the fetus and so the fetus has a right to life because death deprives the fetus of conscious goods which it is the foetus's biological natural to make itself have " . However when a woman's health is at risk or they will give birth to a child with defects then abortion would be better for the mother and for the baby. If we know the child will be born with defects then there is no point in having have the mother keep the baby if she chooses not to. I'm not sure my opponent considered if the person wanting an abortion is a rape victim. If someone is raped (especially at a young age - younger than 18) do you think that they should have to go through the process of having a child. Not only will it be hard to look after at such a young age. It will also be hard to explain to the baby who the father is. Having a child who reminds you of such a horrible experience is not a nice thing. What if the child grows up to look like his father (the rapist). Then what? In conclusion, I believe that women have the right to have abortions. First, women have the right to control their own bodies. Second, they have the right to have abortions if the pregnancies will affect their health and their babies health in a harmful way. Third, women have the right to have abortions if they have been raped. Also advocates of abortion believe that abortion is seriously wrong but women should do what is best for them and their babies. Sources Sharon Smith. " Abortion is every woman's right. " Socialistworker 23 April 2004. Stretton, Dean. "The Deprivation Argument Against Abortion. " Bioethics 18.2 (Apr. 2004): 144-180. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. Currie, Donya. "Pre-pregnancy diabetes raises risk of birth defects. " Nation's Health 38.8 (Oct. 2008): 21-21. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. J. Stone. Why Potentiality Matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1987; 17: 815-830. More recently: J. Stone. Why Potentiality Still Matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1994; 24: 281-294 . https://www.google.co.uk... . https://www.google.co.uk...

The two conditions are not related to my topic.I said that women should have the choice to have abortion iff they won't be eliminated by the limits.As we all know that having abortion with pregnancy over 3 months or too many times do harm to women seriously.So definitely,I will not recommend that.All of my argumentation is based on people who don't qualify these conditions. The opponent said that the contrary case like if individuals are not cognitive enough to distinguish right and wrong,then they should most certainly not be given full liberty as to the decision of maarrige. My opinion wiil be like this.Because they can't get married,they are not cognitive.So what if the baby is born.What will the baby experience?Where's the family?It's definitely not a good situation. Because they are not cognitive enough,they should decide immediately to give the baby up.They can't afford that and they really don't have the ability to educate the baby. And think about another case,if the mother has cancer,and with pregnancy,she can't have some specific medicine,there will be a collective agreement that she should have abortion.And some sickness will even inherit to the baby.In this case,the abortion decision should depend on the woman. So,abortion should be women's choice unless not many abortion history and less than 3 months pregnancy. Thanks

Not everyone in America is religious so let's take religion out of it. To say that getting pregnant, with no plan in place to prevent that is a "little mistake" is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly there are no reasonable people going around saying that if someone chooses to have an abortion then they should be killed, I have no idea where that comes from. Now to the real point of the issue, is abortion okay? The answer to this should be very simple and I am not sure why it is such a big question. Killing another human being is illegal, and it is immoral regardless of whether you are religious or not. In what world is it okay to kill another human? An unborn child is not just a nuisance that you should be allowed to kill off at your convenience. Any scientist will tell you a single cell is proof of life, why does this for some reason apply to everything other than humans to the left?


Question: Should Oral Contraceptives be Accessible Without a Prescription?

Access to Contraceptives

I appreciate and acknowledge your viewpoint. Regarding the age restriction, I concur that a young woman should ideally reach the age of eighteen before acquiring birth control. While I understand your stance that a girl seeking birth control is likely already sexually active, I argue that the absence of easy access to contraceptives could deter premature sexual activity and prevent potential regrets. Permitting minors to obtain birth control without parental consent could inadvertently facilitate impulsive decisions that they may not fully comprehend due to their age and maturity level.

Your responses have become more like chaotic rants, then straight forward replies to the actual context of the contentions in the beginning. You tend to generalize where specifics are needed and you have repeatedly stated the way you feel without substantiating your position with reasonable arguments based on acquirable information about our world. I am under the impression you are not even researching anything on the subject, as your response are not well balanced to the data on reality. Groups Sustainability 1.) Rare situations? Here are the top three reasons for abortion [1] --negative impact on the mother's life --financial instability --relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother The majority of women who choose abortions have already given birth. Mothers who have had one or more children comprise over 60% of all abortions, and women who do not have protected/birth control accounts for only 8% of abortions [1] I really didn’t expect you to reason people should only have sex for procreation. The reasoning you are conveying is skewed, and it is misleading you to believe you are not responsible for the outcomes of tomorrow, because you did not act today. Please review my arguments on this subject. Again, my contention are based on the logic, that if (a), and if (b), then (c) is true. I explain my reasons; here I am arguing that suffering is a good thing to reduce, which I stated at the beginning of my elaboration on the conclusion. I did not ignore the ”choice” of adoption; I supported it, I also briefly explained and gave you sources to review the consequences of the amount of children already put up for adoption in America and worldwide). I really don’t think you understand the compounding impact of your position of “abortion only”. 3.) Yes, I think suffering matters; it is one possible way we may find tangible criteria to take into account to help make more reasonable decisions. It is very rare for women in the US to die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth (that is a good thing), and of those few, many did not receive medical care during pregnancy. Although, 1 in 6 pregnant women experience some form of pregnancy complication. [2] No, the women can choose to have sex without also choosing to “possibly” become pregnant and rear a child. This is where you don’t understand your argument denies women their basic human rights. Your argument is further complicated by how our sexual behaviors have evolved. Most humans now don’t live under conditions that give strong incentives for high births rates, usually to counter the high death rates. We are adapted to a high level of sexual appetite, high male sperm count (more than we ever need), and why it has been hard to conclude, some studies have shown females unconsciously respond to chemical difference in males perspiration, i.e. sexually aroused male Vs. male with no sexual intentions. [3] Abortion can be sad, and no, not always an easy way out. And, I must say, I think your prognoses are ignorant of a vast amount of information on the subject; this to me makes some of your positions seem very rude in considering all the aspects of these topics and how people deal with the agenda of abortion. Modern human rights are not usually predicated by our ability to care for ourselves; at least this can be true for the last several decades as the Humanitarian Revolution unfolded. The issue is usually to what degree of suffering can be determined, though it certainly is an open subject, but abortion is not entirely depended on it such a proposition. Under the definition of human rights I have given, a person on life support is guaranteed their human rights, although this too can be subject to change given the certain circumstances. If you really are arguing that people who cannot care for a child should still have a child, this is your choice; though it seems horribly ill-conceived to me. Remember adoption can be a good option, but not always, and sometimes not even an option. Don’t confuse adoption with solution; you may be attempting to pass on a problem, not actually solve it (the child is not a problem in-of-itself, but the circumstance brought about by the emergence of the child into the problematic situation is the problem). Human rights 1.) I believe you are correct in asserting that you should not be obligated to support abortion with your tax dollars. 2.) No, females do not always have a choice in getting pregnant, and based on your arguments against abortion you attempt to take chooses away from women, by dismantling their basic right to choose to become a mother. The women can choose to have sex without also choosing to “possibly” become pregnant and rear a child as I stated above. 3.) “You are allowed kill your kid” was not said by any of the sources I cited, nor did I say it. You are possibly (I assume unconsciously) trying to arouse certain emotions with terminology that signals to the reader’s brain the association of a toddle or a born baby. It may be hard to understand, but there is a difference. I don’t assume you are against the use of contraceptives? There are a vast amount of sperm lost to eternity, “possible lives”, be it half of a possible life in some sense; or the egg in the women, does that egg fall under your “kid” category, this may sound weird, but there are difference stages in the productions of life that should help us differentiate things so we may make more reasonable responses to problems. Article 1. All human beings are “born free and equal in dignity and rights”. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. [4] It is international agreed that humans are granted their human rights upon birth. Even so, I am not arguing that abortion at any point of the pregnancy is equal, nor am I arguing that those who may choose abortion should not consider all other options first and foremost. I believe in fighting for any and all rights the possible child can have which will not impede the mothers fully granted human rights. I certainly am not treating children “like animals” (assuming that means how animals more likely to be treated cruelly), quite the opposite; I am asking you and others to consider that it is fundamental we consider actions to prevent greater harm and suffering, and always striving to reduce the need for any extremities to accomplish such goals. We are animals in the biological sense and are you insinuating we should treat non-humans as though they are beneath us? Societal and Individual Health 1.) Ok. 2.) I will leave the part for readers to decipher. You are confusing the idea of possibilities with correct answer and as I said, the analogy is preposterous; they are not cross-comparative, though I made a rough abstract analogy of the improvement of oversight. Yes, the dad’s knowledge of the kids doing the drugs makes him capable to assess the situation, which would be safer if he didn’t know. You are only making an argument for what safe access is, not that safe access is bad (that is an oxymoron). Safe access can be subjected to change and appropriation in-order make access safer than it otherwise would be, and why it might not be as safe as we want, I argue it does make it safer and cited a study. [5] Reduction in Criminal Behavior If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal. Making abortion illegal does not significantly reduce abortion. [1] Sources [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] http://www.womenshealth.gov... [3] http://www.livescience.com... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://www.pbs.org... [6] http://www.guttmacher.org... [7] http://www.livescience.com...

We are debating "Abortion should remain legal." Anyways, let me start. P.S. The Affirmative Constructive and Negative Constructive will only have their case but won't refute arguments (in case you didn't know that). Contention 1: Embryos/Fetuses have no rights! I'm going to present my 1st argument for the choice of abortion. "There is no such thing as a "right to live" when the embryo/fetus is in a woman's body. The embryo/fetus has no right to be in the woman's body. It is only there by the woman's permission. Permission is not a right and it can be revoked as in the case of the embryo/fetus being killed. The 14th Amendment also says only "born citizens" have the right granted to individuals by the U.S. Constitution which means the embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to life. Thus, his life is not protected by any part of the Constitution and has no rights! Well, the 14th Amendment clearly says that all people born or naturalized in the USA are citizens and thus have the right of life. Without being born, an embryo/fetus is not a human being. There are two traits that rights derive from. If something doesn't have one of these two traits, it's does not have the right to live. Those two traits are personality and rationality. "Without awareness, expectation, belief, desire, aim, and purpose, a being can have no interests; without interests he cannot be benefited; without the capacity to be a beneficiary, he can have no rights." This indicates to having a personality (belief, desire, aim, purpose) and having rationality (awareness). Having both of these traits gives human beings rights. An embryo/fetus doesn't have any personality nor does it have rationality which is why it does not have the "right to life". The fact is that the embryo/fetus has no rights. Contention 2: A pregnant woman has rights. My 2nd argument will be about a women's reproducing rights. A woman has reproducing rights which includes the choice of ending a pregnancy. A woman also has the right to her own body. That being is a product of the woman which gives her the right of abortion. As the woman has the right to reproduce and to her own body, so the embryo/fetus has no rights which means that the woman can do what she wants with the embryo/fetus as long as the embryo/fetus is still in the uterus. Contention 3: Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion but instead harms people who want abortions. My 3rd and final argument is that banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening. If abortion is illegal, abortions are still going to happen except they are homemade. Without trained professionals using safe and secure procedures, women will go to individuals who have no adequate medical skills. World Health Organization has measured up to 20 million unsafe abortions in unintended pregnancies only. 14% unsafe abortion out of all abortions would increase so badly and increasing maternal deaths. There are also some very unfortunate statistics such as 8 maternal deaths per hour due to unsafe abortions and according to WHO, a woman dies from unsafe abortions each 8 minutes. Thus, banning abortion won't stop abortion from happening, it will just cause more maternal deaths and disabilities for Americans. Back to Con for his Constructive. After that, the refutations begin. ;) Sources: 1. http://www.abortionisprolife.com... 2. http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.lancet.com...

Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized because it could cause young children to think that it's ok to do drugs. Legalizing drugs is like telling a teen it's ok to engage in risky behavior, when drugs are involved, there is an increase of possible death or permeant injury. I'll agree that prescribed drugs are just as easily abused, but this drug should be used due to its "safe" use, when actually it could cause serious problems later on in life or cause a serious reaction due to a existing medical condition. Again this can happen with prescribed drugs, but the drug in question is just as dangerous as herion and cocaine.

With your first statement, I must say that you don"t have to look to far a lot of the con people say that the women should be killed by this "horrible decision". And yes killing is totally wrong, but if the women is raped it"s obvious that there needs an abortion, also if the family it"s not economicaly all right then, they should either abort or put to adoption, which they do the second one most of the time. Yeah, if the parents are financialy above but they did not planned it, they should take responsability or abort which I"m ok with either, and yes I know that sounds "hypocritical" but let"s think about certain factors about how abortion could help. 1: If the baby is deformed (it cannot work propertly) or is diagnosed with a horrible disease, the parents should prevent the pain and abort before the fetus comes to the world. 2: The Economic position is essential, if the parents or mother are/is poor they should either put on adoption or abort. 3:(This is a more personal opinion). The over-population is a big factor for which I believe that abortion is a good way to stop the world from ending a lot faster. But look, it is my opinion and if you get angry with tell me why and we will talk like civilized people.

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

If a woman does not want/isn't ready for/cannot raise a child, then why should she have to go through giving birth to it? An unborn child doesn't have a birthday, a name, and depending on how far into the pregnancy the woman is, not even a gender, let alone a conscience mind or emotions. If we refuse a woman to choose what happens to her body, we are stripping her of a right that all people are entitled to.

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)

I thank Con for their reply.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedCon does seem to agree, and thus seeks to provide justification to restrict abortion in the embryonic period.The right to life as an absolute is untenableCon says..."I am advocating a right to life specifically for unborn embryonic humans,"And that right to life can't be based on a more fundamental absolute right to life, which once again Con agrees is untenable.You sure do talk alot about this point for some one who supposedly agrees with it, I thinketh he protest too much.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Prior consent does not mean consent can't be withdrawn laterCon does admit that prior consent doesn't necessarily mean you can't withdraw later on concerning the use of your own body. Cons assertion of morally culpable/morally liable isn't it's self a justification or counter argument, rather for that they use another legal consistency argument, CPR law.For starters there is an argument that that law is bad law, I'm sure that good intentions exist behind such a law, BUT, the way to hell is paved with good intentions.When you start passing laws that effect Samaritan acts which impose various burdens/liabilities etc they act as a disincentive to help, and that's the last thing we want. Thus why various Good Samaritan laws get implemented. [1]As such the first argument here is to impose such a liability in the case of the violinist or CPR is bad law to begin with, thus the legal consistency argument is rejected on those grounds.But lets assume that the CPR law is good law, In the CPR example conflicting values/interests have being weighed up. We could grant that the burden imposed on the person doing CPR is minimal compared to interest of saving a self aware, intelligent human.Accepting this doesn't get you to forced continuation of pregnancy, cause as alluded to before, the burden imposed on the woman is much higher, and the interest in the early stages of pregnancy of a non self aware, non intelligent human organism is much lower.Tacit Consent Con still argues to well you knew it could happen therefore you consented to it, eg pregnancy, side effects of medication.There are all sorts of counters to this, well you went out late at night wearing that, you know that rapists exists, ergo you consented to rape.You knew that tree branches sometimes fall, and sometimes cause death, you went for a walk where there were trees, a branch fell and hit you and killed you, therefore you consented to that.So here is the logical point, Knowledge that if you commit Y, possibly outcome X, doesn't necessarily mean you consented to X by doing Y.Ergo, knowledge that sex can have an outcome of pregnancy, does not necessarily mean you consented to pregnancy.Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)Cons remarks here are really aimed at countering the personhood criteria which I will get to later.But as far as this argument goes, Con doesn't dispute that billionaires can't be forced to give up most of their wealth to save self aware, intelligent, suffering, humans as such I maintain how dis-proportional it is to demand that women give up more to save less.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childCon wrongly asserts that my argument here is based on who you think is a person.The argument is that you would make your decision based on various criteria, such as self awareness, intelligence, ability to feel pain, ergo 5 year old child over 100, 3 day human embryos.Con asks..."But who would Pro pick if forced to choose between their child and their spouse and why? "Con is only helping my case here. In their case it's alot harder. Now change child to 100, 3 day human embryos, now it just became alot easier.I argue that Con/Myself would choose their spouse over 100, 3 day human embryos, once again more plausibly because the correct morally relevant factors are things like self awareness, intelligence, ability to fell pain. Change spouse to any self aware, intelligent human, I submit same result.Con may of thought their counter example weakened my argument here, it only emphasised the point more.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Con puts forth the idea that abortion be illegal but not on the grounds of murder, something much less, something that one would pay a fine for, like a speeding ticket perhaps ?So why does Con do this ? either Con agrees abortion is murder is a false premise, or Con still wants to leave open the option that abortion is murder in which case his remarks are all one big distraction.I maintain that abortion is murder is a false premise and shown to be such when followed consistently and logically to it's absurd conclusion.Cons Law Consistency argumentCon makes the point that allowing abortion laws could be wrong, yes which is why I present argument more than just abortion is legal so argument is over. Like wise it's possible that the laws Cons use in their various arguments could be wrong. Con wanted a way to reconcile their claimed inconsistency, that's one way. And no, you can't dismiss this possibility just because it has not being proven.Secondly I made the argument about the difference between the pregnant woman and her bodily rights and the texting driver.Once again..."Con may not like it, but it can be reconciled logically speaking."Personhood & RightsContra Con, no we are not going to just accept Cons criteria of personhood on their say so.Reasons why Cons personhood criteria should be rejected.1) To give personhood to genetic humanity is on it's own an unsupported assertion and begs the question against a mental capacity criteria of personhood.2) It's speciesism, humans declaring their own "humanity" in the biological sense gives them personhood and thus excludes others who are not of that particular DNA set.3) If God exists, God or any non material entity that is self aware and intelligent not only is excluded cause it has no human DNA, but is excluded regardless of what material criteria you use for personhood. This is also a argument in support of the 1-5 mental criteria.4) Counter factual, what if things had turned out differently on earth ? what if humans took a slightly different evolutionary or even creationist path ? Something close to humans exist yet don't contain our specific human DNA as we know it. Cons criteria excludes such beings from personhood. Also again providing also another reason to accept the 1-5 criteria for personhood.5) If Con just claims, okey self aware aliens and Gods are persons too then it just becomes ad hoc, making it up as you go along, and frankly denying the obvious, your only including those things based on a capacity mental criteria yet won't admit as such cause your using a materialist human DNA criteria for personhood to deny abortion rights.My argument is that my 1-5 criteria for personhood is at least superior (not saying perfect) to Cons criteria, thus the conclusion of non personhood of the early human organism stands.Cons law consistency arguments self defeatingThe reasoning that Con has used for their arguments and counter arguments is to invoke some prior legal law, then argue that allowing abortion is inconsistent with that law and thus to make it consistent abortion should be illegal in the name of said legal consistency.This is ultimately self defeating, at least to those of us (maybe Con as well?) where abortion is legal in the embryonic period.Cause now we can turn such reasoning on Cons position, where abortion is legal in the embryonic period, to adopt Cons position that such abortion should be illegal is obviously contradictory to the previous laws which allow such an abortion. Thus to maintain legal consistency we must reject Cons position of abortion should be illegal.....................in the name of legal consistency of course.I thank Sengejuri for the debate.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Having a child is a great joy to many, but there is no denying that it is also very troublesome and expensive which is why I don"t think anyone should be forced to do it if they don"t really want to. Moreover, those who aren"t even mature and responsible enough to use contraceptives properly clearly wouldn"t be able to handle having a child. Not only is being forced to carry out a pregnancy distressing for the parents, but the child also suffers and as abortion prevents this suffering it must be right.

Not everyone in America is religious so let's take religion out of it. To say that getting pregnant, with no plan in place to prevent that is a "little mistake" is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly there are no reasonable people going around saying that if someone chooses to have an abortion then they should be killed, I have no idea where that comes from. Now to the real point of the issue, is abortion okay? The answer to this should be very simple and I am not sure why it is such a big question. Killing another human being is illegal, and it is immoral regardless of whether you are religious or not. In what world is it okay to kill another human? An unborn child is not just a nuisance that you should be allowed to kill off at your convenience. Any scientist will tell you a single cell is proof of life, why does this for some reason apply to everything other than humans to the left?