Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Without a Prescription?

Should teenagers be compelled to notify their parents if they are using birth control?

It is argued that teenagers should not be taking birth control pills. They are too young to be engaging in sexual activities in the first place. Nowadays, teenagers are preoccupied with parties, drugs, love, and sex, rather than focusing on what truly matters. Family is paramount; it is the cornerstone of life. One must cherish every aspect of their family. No young woman should be engaging in sexual activity unless she is prepared to raise a child. Financial, physical, and mental stability are essential for child-rearing. One must be ready to shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood. In my opinion, teenagers should not be engaging in sexual activities. They may believe they are in love and want to be with someone forever, but reality can be harsh. As a teenager, one should not be preoccupied with sex or other such matters. Instead, they should prioritize their family, friends, and education. They should aim to graduate from high school and wait until at least college to consider sexual activity.

Prove what? There's no factual information in question for this argument. This debate is solely based on opinion. It is your task to show why employers should pay for their employee's contraception.

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

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

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.

Well like my previous statement. If they want to go and have S-x then they know the consequences.

Women should have the option of having an abortion, either because they are unable to take care of the child, they were raped, it is an unwanted child, or because they know they have drug problems. QUESTION: Whether you are for or against abortion, how should the idea of abortion be avoided, where both sides compromise? In others, what is a solution?

I think I should have been clearer in my reason of arguing, I can find no logical evidence of suicide of any sort being even remotely moral or justifiable. The united states is creating a drug used for the sole purpose of suicide in patients with terminal illness Every Day more than 2,500 kids(12 to 17) abuse prescription drugs, Depressants, opioids and antidepressants are the leading cause of suicide by 45%.Of the 1.4 million drug-related emergency room admissions in 2005, 598,542 were associated with abuse of pharmaceuticals alone or with other drugs. In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration found that abuse of the painkiller Fentanyl killed more than 1,000 people that year in the US. It is thirty to fifty times more powerful than heroin. Fentanyl is an opioid medication. An opioid is sometimes called a narcotic. Fentanyl is used as part of anesthesia to help prevent pain after surgery or other medical procedure. But teens and adults are using them to satisfy a desperate need to leave the life they live, I don"t care about religion, I don"t care about body autonomy. What I care about is the fact the U.S is even considering making suicide legal to a "certain degree, at no degree is it ok to tell someone they have a right to kill their selves. What I care about is the message that this law is sending to teens all over the state, I"m not the smartest girl but I know a stupid idea when I see one ,and this is the dumbest idea congress could have ever created. Body autonomy is not the ultimate point in this argument. The point in this argument and is that this one decision is going to end up stirring a nation Section 443.2 of SB 128 states "this bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for medication to an individuals life without his or her authorizations or to conceal or destroy a rescission of a request for medication, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individuals death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or to destroy a rescission of a request." There are multiple way around this bill and flaws that could end up with citizens going to jail and being charged with homicide if they make one fatal mistake. http://www.drugs.com... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... Everything else I have to say is completely in my own opinion. Debate cant only be supported by facts because no one wins that way you have to appeal to the peoples emotion. I debate because I feel strongly about something, and I don"t care if people say I"m wrong, The whole purpose of debating is to open your side of the story. Its not about who has better facts or who"s a better speaker, because at the end of the day how much of that is really going to matter? None of it, because you still have to make a choice. Put yourself in their families" shoes, their loved ones are dying of terminal illness, and kids are killing themselves. Wouldn't you want your little girl, or your big sister your brother or even your father to hold out for just a few more minutes so you can tell them how much you love them, and tell everyone that they were survivors not quitters? I want to fight to my last breath. It doesn't matter if I win this debate or not, and I probably won"t, but I want everyone to know exactly how I feel about Physician assisted suicide.

Medicines are and continue to be one of the most important necessities(next to oxygen,food and water,clothing and shelter). Everyone has the right to get good quality medicines.If a poor man is sick,he cannot remain sick.He has to be treated.So,this man should have the right to avail medicines free of cost.Now,the Contender might argue that there is no thing as"free lunch". But, we still do get good quality medicines free of cost.Also,it is the governments duty to give medicines free of cost as it is an absolute necessity. Here is a list of hospitals (in Chennai) that provide medicines free of cost and still mint money. 1. Hindu Mission Hospital The hospital"s services include projects such as "Narayana Seva", "Bhakta Jana Seva", "Annalakshmi", the Free Artificial Limb Centre and the Kidney Care Endowment. These free intensive camps are regularly conducted in rural areas on different days of the week. The hospital also provides treatment and medications at free of cost. 2. AMS Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital This hospital conducts free camps twice a month, providing diagnosis and treatment facilities, vaccines for women and children. Also, outreach vans are sent out to slums to provide treatment at the doorstep. This hospital also facilitates delivery and caesarian operations for poor women free of cost. It also conducts eye camps free of cost and underprivileged patients can avail free services for in-patient treatment! 3. Adyar Cancer Institute Founded in 1954 by Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy, the Adyar Cancer Institute is a top ranking cancer institute in India according to the World Health Department (WHO). It was the first institute in India which received the Cobalt-60 Therapy Unit for cancer treatment. The hospital provides free treatment to the financially poor segment of the society which makes up to around 63% of the patients. 4. Shri ISARI Velan Mission Hospital This hospital provides people with free vaccination for life threatening diseases and other services for the economically marginal sections of the society. 5. Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Hospital for Women and Children This hospital, exclusively for women and children provides free dental, eye care, and pediatric services free of cost to the disadvantaged sections of the society. 6. Government Royapettah Hospital One among the most popular hospitals in Chennai, the Government Royapettah hospital provides treatment for accidents, emergencies, burns, cardiology, ENT, and general medicine free of cost for the poor. 7. Southern Railway Hospital The hospital was originally intended to be a hospital for railway employees alone but now it treats the general public as well. Founded in 1928, the hospital provides treatment at affordable costs and HIV treatment and medicines are absolutely free of cost. Sources: http://www.urbantree.in... Hence,I believe that medicines should not be made free of cost.

Re: Harm #1: Why must anyone other than the individual involved and his/her family decide anything? You have not established that it is the business of or responsibility of others. Re: Harm #2: Handing out condoms does not increase sexual awareness. Handing out condoms does not ensure or guarantee they are being used. Handing out condoms is like making drunks wear seatbelts. Public schools have been teaching sex education since the 60's or earlier; has the government effort improve the situation or made it worse? Re: Harm #3: Conservative views may be unpopular among liberals, but that does not mean they don't work. Re: Advantage #1: As history has amply shown, government is not the solution to most problems and it can only make most social problems worse by interfering with society. Furthermore the government is not responsible for society, it is responsible to society.

Unfortunatley, my opponent forfeited her round 3 and did not present her own arguments. My own arguments still stand without refutation. With this in mind, I strongly urge a CON vote.


Question: Should Contraceptive Pills Be Accessible Without Prescription?

The US Supreme Court has established abortion as a "fundamental right" under the US Constitution, with the landmark case of Roe v. Wade in 1973 affirming abortion rights. The decision stated that the Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy, which includes the choice to terminate a pregnancy. Reproductive rights empower women by granting them autonomy over their bodies, enabling them to determine their futures and participate equally in society. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have both emphasized the importance of reproductive choice for women's equality. Personhood is not considered to begin at conception, but rather after a fetus becomes viable or after birth. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade clarifies that the term "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn. Fetuses are unable to feel pain when most abortions are performed, as the cortex, necessary for pain perception, is not functional until at least the 26th week of development. Access to legal and professional abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. Before abortion was legalized, women would resort to dangerous methods or seek unsafe "back-alley" abortions, leading to maternal deaths. The World Health Organization estimates that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths annually, primarily in developing countries. Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not result in long-term health issues. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that abortion is among the safest medical procedures in the US. Women who receive abortions are less likely to experience mental health problems than those denied abortions. A study comparing mental health outcomes found that 95% of women who had abortions felt it was the right decision a week later. Abortion allows women to avoid bringing fetuses with severe abnormalities to term, sparing them the emotional and financial burden of caring for a child with a fatal condition. Women denied abortions are more likely to face unemployment, welfare dependency, poverty, and domestic violence. Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage, as many women seeking abortions lack the resources to support a child. Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers, as unintended pregnancies are associated with various negative outcomes, including birth defects, maternal depression, and child abuse. The Congressional Budget Office found that restricting abortion would increase the federal deficit due to the additional need for Medicaid coverage and welfare assistance.

I think that stricter rules should be placed on who can get an abortion. There should be perameters and rules. For instance a careless teenager should not be able to have one. If a young girl thinks that she is old enough and mature enough to be having sex, she should be smart enough to use protection. If not, her stupid mistake should not be taken out on that baby. I think that teens use abortion as a back- up plan, and it is wrong! Killing your baby for your own sake is disgusting. If a woman gets pregnant and her life is put in danger than, with her consent, she should be one of the few to get an abortion. If there are health problems involved, I think an abortion is understandable but unacceptable for a stupid, careless woman.

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

I see what you mean as far as it being a sensitive topic is concerned. However, I feel as though it should be available to everyone, with the option to not attend the classes, rather than it being made something which parents must teach, rather than the school. It is a controversial issue, and people may not wish to partake in lessons due to their religion, but for others who do want to learn these things, it is important that they are able to do so, and therefore the lessons should at least be available: it is better to have them, even if some members of the class choose not to go to the lessons. If it is offensive to their religion, or they have strong feelings against it, then absolutely, it should not be forced upon them, but if they do not want to attend, they don't have to. As well, as I said, there are parents who are opposed, but their children are not: if we leave it as something that parents must teach, then there will be children who do want to know these things, but don't have access to the information. At the very least, there should be classes, should they wish to attend.

Well to answer the harm 1 question, yes it is the persons personal choice, however just because one decides to have sex prematurely, does not mean they have the access the needed protection such as condom (male and female) spermicide, birth control etc. And that is where the government comes in. I am not stating that it is the governments sole responsibility for a persons decision, however by implementing this plan the government would be helping others to understand the harmful side effects of unsafe sex among teens thus increasing awareness, and lowering the probability of pregnancy. For the attacks on harm 2: My plan does not only call for handing out condoms, my plan calls for increased awareness in public schools. I agreee that handing out condoms does not completely prevent unwanted pregnancy and or STDs, ut the handing out of condoms in consistency with the teachings of how to properly use a condom wil in turn increase awareness thus preventing unwanted pregancys and or STDs. It is true that the government has been teaching sex education since the 60's but this education has ben based on abstinence. Though I agree that bstinence is the best way, for some teens it is simply not applied in todays world. The internet and television has revolutionized the worlds thinking, thus policys must change. As I have shown with my new York times evidence, the time for a new policy is now. As the times change, policys need to change with it. As for the attack on my advantage: Could you please further extend your argument and give me this ample evidence and how it directy links to my case.

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

1. IntroductionIn today’s world, medicines have literally become part of our daily lives. Due to the push of supply and the pull of demand, researchers and public health organisation alike classify more and more common conditions as “diseases”, as the population is ready to take any type of medicines for their cure from these conditions. Improvements in the field of medicine are taking place and extensive research being conducted. The topic of the debate is “Medicines Should Be Made Free”, therefore, the burden of Pro is to show that medicines should be made free at any cost, as “should” is a synonym for ‘duty’ or ’ absolute necessity’, whereas, the burden of Con is to show that it is not "absolute necessity” and to highlight the appalling consequences if such actions were to take place. The whole argument is about whether or not customers like you and me should pay for the medicines we get. The argument that "medicines should be given free" is unsustainable and are utopian dreams of a pied piper.2. ResearchThe Pharmaceutical industry is constantly in the search for new and better therapies, and have developed various molecules that has revolutionised modern medicine. The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most innovative industries in the world today. Pharmaceutical organisations play a pivotal role in promoting the field of research, especially during the outbreaks of deadly epidemics like Ebola, H1N1 etc. One of the major factors that plays an important role in promoting research is money. Money is crucial in this field, as it is in almost any conceivable venture. It is pertinent to note the words of Chancellor of USFC, that the cost of developing new drugs is simply “crazy”; because if a country needs to sell at least one drug in the market, the funds required are upwards of 350-400 million dollars. She says that the “Pharmaceutical industry is not one where anybody can make profits”. It requires major funding, patience and loads of luck to hit upon an efficacious drug.Then where does one expect to fund the pharmaceutical industry? Two common sources are the donors (NGOs) and the customers (pull of demand by the end users). If the pull of demand is cut off by the seemingly ideal plan of doling out medicines free, the research efforts of Pharmaceutical companies is sure to falter. We can’t expect donors to keep paying tons of cash for the Pharmaceutical industry. There is a limit for anything that comes free. Or have'nt we heard the saying "There is nothing called free lunch!!"Therefore, without adequate compensation by the end users, it neither probable for good vaccinations, drugs and other medicines to be created nor improvisations possible. So, making medicines free is suicidal to both the population and the pharmaceutical industry. Sources:http://www.forbes.com...http://phprimer.afmc.ca...

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

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

I accept. I will let you present your Con argument first, and then present my rebuttal.

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


Question: Should Oral Contraceptives be Accessible Without Prescription?

The accessibility of birth control in high schools is concerning. I believe that the prevalence of birth control usage among high school students is alarming, as they are often too young to make informed decisions. These teenagers should carefully consider the consequences of their actions, as an unplanned pregnancy during high school could force them to drop out and subsequently settle for a low-paying job to support the child. Therefore, the availability of birth control in high schools should be reconsidered.

1. then people shouldn't do it... or at least were a condom 2. In the depression people made home made abortions. I don't know how to get videos on here so just put this url link up. (no pun intended) http://www.youtube.com... 3. What about the basic human rights. The right to live. It is inbeded in the Constitution so abortion would all-in-all be against the law. 4. post-abortion stress. my source for this is, http://postabortionsyndrome.org..., 5. now here's the pun, LordKnuckle said, "I see everyone for abortion has already been born." 6. How would you feel if you'd been aborted. Nothing cause you wouldn't of existed. 7. The baby is alive when the heart first beats. 8. What would happen if some of the greatest people in history were aborted. overval sources: http://www.youtube.com... http://postabortionsyndrome.org...

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.

I understand that you are against abortion but what's so bad about it? It's kinda nice. I actually had an affair with the abortion doctor that gave me my sixth abortion and that's why i had the seventh one so i think it's kinda convenient kinda like walmart.

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

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

Your second argument argues that if there are fewer children, there will be more children going to school. This is simply not true. If there are more children, there will be a smaller proportion of children going to school, but there will be many more children in school than if there are fewer children. Basically, let's say you have 100 kids. They represent the children of the nation without birth control policies. Of the 100, let's say 65 go to school. That's 65%, and not a great number. But now let's only have 50 kids. They represent the children of the nation with birth control policies. Of the 50, let's say 40 go to school. That's 80%, and a pretty great number. But do you see the problem? Yes, the number is much better with fewer children, 25% larger. But the number of students attending school is much smaller, 25 students smaller. If there are more children, more will go to school. Also, the argument that women having more children is somehow A). Denying them of having a voice. and B). contributing to global warming is nonsense. Global warming is factories. Unless women are giving birth to cars and factories, they aren't going to save the world by not giving birth as much.

Yes, you have the BOP, and I have fulfilled it already, you have not. --First refutation--My opponent mixed the order, but ok. The argument here is they are prostitutes, therefore it should be illegal. My opponent now opens up a huge new debate on the sex laws. Now, the resolution states ought to be illegal, this means this argument too considers the "ought" factor. So, my opponent first must prove pornography, and in this argument prostitution should be illegal. Also the majority of his case says this is bad for women. The funny thing is, prostitutes, when legalized, have lower AIDS rates then when it is legal. [1] Now, when we make things illegal it becomes less clean, as we see from the drug war, and it is STILL used. And it would be extremely hard to censor it. The current porn industry has many scans for STD's, one check every 30 days. [2] Now that is illegal, (assume your side prevails in the laws) then the industry WILL form a black market, and make it less safe. My opponents cause now stands defeated here, as the ought in the resolution acts in my favor.My opponent essentially conceded that children watching porn is illegal, which proves my point. It is impossible to ban this stuff, and a ban would to little to lower users, etc. In pakistan, they have a ban on this vile stuff, yet the amount of people watching it within the country is still high. [3] The basis of my opponents argument fails because even if we ban it it just enters a black market making it LESS SAFE, and the same problems with the porn industry live, and get worse (STD's). My opponent then bolds the statement I have not justified my arguments below, which is false. I have explained the benefits of legal porn: Economic and crime wise, then I proved it was impossible to ban via 1st amendment. My opponent must have really not read me saying CASE, which is arguments for porn staying legal. Her bolded statement is false. I think ANY reader can see where my justification is.My opponents next argument is if your interested in intercourse, why not have intercourse. There are many reasons, nagging wives, a refusing wife, you do not want to risk pregnancy again or ever. There are many reasons to have fantasies then procreate with your wive. My opponent also only refutes one of the arguments I presented with the marriage thing. As stated, porn means some things to people, different things to other. [4] So some marriages it will not effect. It also teaches new techniques, discovers your sexuality with your wife, and helps find ways it "turns you on", therefore helping you and your spouse. [4] My opponent ONLY refuted ONE of the benefits presented, the it will not effect you if you have a good self image. This is a fact, as if you have confidence you will prevail. His case here is no woman would like a man watching a porn star, the funny thing is some marriages watch it together!! [4] Like: "With the availability of porn at your fingertips couples using it together is a new phenomenon in many relationships. More and more couples are using pornography to help stimulate their sex life. " [4]These couples have no problem with this, and my opponents case forgets the upsides to porn in a relationship. --Second-- My opponents argumet here is porn is addictive, "look as the sources", and I urge the same. There is actually evidence in that wikipedia article disagreeing with her, and states pornography addiction may not exist. Addiction is a usage of a drug or substance that changes mood, and has adverse effects on the body and mind. [5] Now my opponent has not proven it changes mood at all, just cites an FRC article saying it causes rape. It may not be the porn they are addicted too, but social life and moods make them visit these sites, which implies it is social life, not porn that is causing the so called addiction. [6]My opponents next comparison, again, opens up the debate to prostitution. As I am devils advocating this whole debate, let me argue for that statement too. Prostitution = more things to tax hence more revenues. Also it opens up a new economic market, and as stated lowers AIDS rates from prostitutes, from when they operate illegally, which they DO. My opponent has not proven prostitution "ought" to be banned. As this is the case, I win this argument too.My opponent then talks about it shows bestiality, yet he has no facts to prove any of his assertions. Her argument is education and rehab will not prevent rape, although porn already reduces rape numbers, my opponent ha snot proved how rehabilitation and education would not do anything. We can compare this to Portugal, they legalized drugs and rehab the people, it has worked great, and these people are addicted. No reason rehab would fail. My opponents argument then goes people would not have access. I refer to above. Abolishment would not work. --Third--God prostitution is all over this debate. My opponent then claims people would be kidnapped, like they are now. This is funny. Making it illegal causes the kidnaps as they need to get people to do it and convince them the police wont get them. In Nevada, where is is legal in certain areas, this never happens. My opponents argument is a fallacy, when t is sometimes the laws, not the practice that makes the problems. And remember the benefits of prostitution legalization above.__________________________________________________________________________________________________--Crime--My opponent claims my source is faulty, but this is funny as well. It looked at trends, needing to foresee the future is not needed in this case, this means your biased christian source [FRC] is false too as it does not foresee the future. needing to know who rapes is irrelevant, but the overall statistic is needed. We see once porn becomes legal, RAPE RATES DECREASE. "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults [7].""An academic has claimed to RAW STORY that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption. " [8]"When compared to Disaster Center's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest Internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest Internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape."[8]Point proven.--economics--My opponents argument it will be spent elsewhere. That's not how an economy works, you take away an industry the economy collapses. Extend argument. --First amendment-- First, we can only deprive this right if it infringes life liberty or pursuit of happiness. It actually increases all 3. Also the only time they can regulate speech is commerce, if they feel a compelling interest in nuetral speech, or regulation based on the way the message is sent. [9] the argument only works if it hurts people, it does not.My opponent then asks why does the government tax us. This shows little understanding of law. If the state has an interest to do something, as long as its compelling, they are allowed to do anything. There is no interest to break the 1t amendment for porn. My opponent then says it protects speech, not porn. Porn is an expression, 1st amendment protects expression, [10] it is unconstitutional to ban it. My opponents last argument is it is obscene, does it infringe life liberty or pursuit of happiness? No. No effect on life. Increases liberty, freedom of choice. And no effect on happiness, if it is ugly dont watch it. It is protected by the first amendment. Conclusion: 1. pro has not met the BOP2. Porns benefits outweigh the false negatives presented by pro3. VOTE PROarguments - con, BOP not met by pro, and I refuted her argumentseverything else tied or you choose.I enjoyed this debate, literally our of room.http://tinyurl.com...

Danger Argument. I went on the website my opponent listed and I saw that some pregnancy complications were listed. All of the side affects my opponent listed for abortions are things that may happen when a woman is pregnant. The list of complications is actually very long. I completely agree that abortions have their risks, but they will become riskier if they are made illegal. It is not as if women are completely oblivious to the side effects of the abortion going in. My opponent fails to look to the fact that a woman is 14 times more likely to die labor than in an abortion. If we make abortion illegal because it is dangerous, it essentially becomes more dangerous because backstreet abortions are unsafe.Killing Argument. Unless my opponent provides evidence that proves that a fetus is a legitimate child, the killing argument cannot be looked to. Fetuses cannot survive outside the womb until they are well developed. Since the fetus is merely a blob of cells with the potential to become a child, eliminating it is not the same as killing. It would be unreasonable to charge the mother with killing.Is abortion the best option? My opponent noted for this point that not all parents hate their child. Firstly, a women getting an abortion generally doesn't hate their potential child. They just see it as beneficial for them to eliminate the fetus because they are unable to take care of it or because they do not want to endure the process of pregnancy/labor.Also look to the arguments that were not addressed by my opponent: How abortion isn't increasingly popular, and How not al women regret their abortions.

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

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...


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

Schools should distribute birth control pills at no cost.

I hold the view that schools ought to provide free birth control pills, as we must prevent unwanted pregnancies. The unchecked population growth contributes to environmental strain and resource depletion. Hence, it is crucial that every young person, regardless of gender, has access to these contraceptives. Girls can take the pills themselves, while boys can ensure their partners use them, thereby collectively contributing to a more sustainable future.

It's problematic for couples who have trouble conceiving naturally to undergo In-Vitro Fertilization because of the side effects that occur with doing so. These include hot flashes, headache, mood swings, bloating, and more devastating effects. THESE would include OHSS(Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome), pelvic pain, heavy vaginal bleeding, abdominal pains, and weight gains of 10 pounds within a span of just 3-5 days.(http://americanpregnancy.org...) In addition to that lengthy and risk-implying list, these are the side effects that are added on to natural pregnancy symptoms and side effects. An average pregnancy's side effects include cramping, constipation, breast tenderness, blood in urine, and nausea, and it usually ends with those side effects only; more or less depending on an individual's genetics(http://www.mayoclinic.org...). IVF produces ALL of these average side effects, making it more reasonable to find a different way to produce offspring that has less side effects if you cannot produce naturally.

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

Pro says that people have the right to their bodies but that doesn't mean that people have the right to kill an unborn child. Why even have unprotected sex if you are not ready to face the consequences of your own actions. Many people say it should be illegal because of rape but, just because someone hurt you doesn't make it right to hurt someone else. Every day thousands of babies die. There are over 900,000 babies that have died since January 1, 2016. Every 30 seconds a baby is aborted. There are about 1.2 million abortions each year. If anything I think giving up for adoption would be a healthier alternative. In conclusion, I don't think someone else should determine whether you live or die. The infant was brought to this world for a reason it is a gift from God. The decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the right to privacy defended in Roe v. Wade is "utterly idiotic" and should not be considered binding precedent: "There is no right to privacy [in the US Constitution]." In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that an abortion "is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution..." Furthermore, the 14th Amendment bars states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of "persons." If women become pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. People need to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Having sexual intercourse, even when contraceptive methods are used, carries with it the risk of a pregnancy. The unborn baby should not be punished for a mistake made by adults. If women are unprepared to care for their children, they should at least put them up for adoption. Furthermore, the legalization of abortion sends a message that human life has little value. Pope Francis condemned "'the throwaway culture'" in Jan. 2014, stating that "what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves, who are discarded as 'unnecessary'. For example, it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day..." House Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL) wrote in Jan. 2014 that "When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us." Abortion may also lead to future medical problems for the mother. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages are attributed to a prior history of induced abortion, and stated that "Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy." A 2013 Chinese study published in the peer-reviewed Indian Journal of Cancer found an association between breast cancer and a history of abortions. A Feb. 2014 study published in the peer-reviewed Cancer Causes and Control found that abortion "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer" and that "the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of [abortions] increases." Having an abortion done always carries the risk of not being able to become pregnant ever again in life. In conclusion, I believe that abortion is wrong. The reasons for this is because, even though abortion may take a burden off of some women's shoulders, afterwards it's just putting weight on again. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Another reason why abortion should be illegal is that killing a baby-an innocent human is wrong but torturing it is even worse. Also lastly a lot of religions forbid abortion. People can do a lot of things to avoid an issue like abortion. One of them is, to try to avoid unwanted pregnancies. A baby deserves the right to live. https://letters2president.org... https://abortion.procon.org.../ http://youthvoices.net... http://www.healthguidance.org...

Sorry, I meant to write "One" not "on". That's tablets for you. But anyways, the first trimester is the best time to abort the pregnancy as all the embryo is at this point is a ball of stem cells. It isn't it's own life yet and the embryo wouldn't be concious until it developed a brain which happens later into the pregnancy. Aborting now is the perfect time to do so because of that. You're not ending a life at this point to suit yourself, all you're doing is preventing your pregnancy andThen again how can something be illegal if you don't get punished for being caught doing it? The whole title makes no sense in this case. It would be the same way if it was legal. Maybe you're on about having doctors give permissions for abortions? Is that what you mean? If so, that's one way it can be done. Otherwise, I can't think about anything else because there isn't really a law in this hypothetical scenario that actually prevents on demand abortions as this isn't investigated nor punished. There has to be a sanction for breaking a law whether that's a fine or a prison sentence. The whole question makes no sense!

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...

My opponent stated:"Sex is not just a physical thing as my opponent tries to dumb it down to be, it also has psychological and emotional effect on people (mainly women). You stated that you were pro sex-education and the main point of sex education is abstinence and sexual awareness so what is expected of the sexual education teacher to teach? Sex is just fine no matter what age? Only protected sex is okay? Abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy unless you feel differently? The main reason society looks down on or even rejects promiscuity is because many are taught abstinence from a young age and they are taught abstinence from a young age to help women from being thrown into a situation they never planned to be in. ""Again, a big point teachers make in sexual health classes is the fact abstinence is the best choice until marriage. If a young girl commits herself for whatever reason (religion, personal, familial) to avoiding sexual activity and stays true to her commitment then it is obvious why praise is necessary. "I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding the terminology. The point of sex-education is not abstinence. The point of sex education is to reduce risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, and equip individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexual activity. What my opponent is referring to is called abstinence-only sexual education, an obsolete approach that focuses solely on abstinence as a tool to fight unhealthy sex practices. What I am proposing is called comprehensive sex education, which also adds the options of contraceptives, safe sex and non vaginal sex practices. Of course, at first glance, abstinence seems like the better choice, for it is a 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. Nevertheless, it has been proven to be very inefficient as an approach to sex education: Abstinence-only sex education has been found to be ineffective in decreasing the HIV risk in the developed world. [1] Abstinence-only sex education has also been found to increase unplanned pregnancy. [2] The concept of no premarital sex is evidently flawed, for it completely neglects the issues for individuals to whom marriage is not valued or desired, not to mention those for whom it's not allowed (specifically LGBT). It distorts information, revealing only the failure rates of contraceptives and not their high success rates and benefits. [3] The whole approach is focused on a compulsory dogma of chastity, rather than an informed decision taking methodology, unsuitable with our free thinking society. Why should abstinence be regarded as the one and only way to prevent sex related problems? Why not tell teenagers that the average condom has a 98% success rate when used correctly, or that the contraceptive pill has a 99.7% success rate? [4] Why should they be discouraged from practicing non vaginal sexual activities such as anal sex, mutual masturbation or oral sex? If there are efficient ways to practice sex with relative safety, the social paradigm is pointless. The truth is that "slut shaming" is not a matter of public health as much as it is a matter of sexism and socio-religious principle. My opponent claims:"The concept of girls being cautious is, I feel, often misunderstood. This advice is not given to victim-blame but to prevent girls from being put in this situation. Example: If a car thief was on the loose you would not tell car owners to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked simply because it is not their fault that their car could be stolen and the car thief should know better. You tell girls to use caution not to communicate to men that it is okay to rape but to prevent a woman from falling victim. "My case is not against prevention. It all depends on how the advise is presented. Of course women should not get in strangers' cars or accept beverages handed to them by unknowns. We must accept the fact that sick individuals exist, and they should be handled as the threat they are. We must raise consciousness the same way we would advert a kid against a pedophile. What I find offensive is when females are told they shouldn't dress in a particular way, or that they should build up an image of chastity for themselves in order to reduce the risk of rape. This is almost like endorsing the animalistic instincts of some degenerates, treating them as poor souls tempted by desire instead of the degenerate criminals they are. As to my opponent's arguments, they all derive from pregnancy and STD's, let us go deeper: Undesired Pregnancy. I share my opponent's opinion on the disadvantages of this issue. However, I don't see how it's a valid reason to indulge in hatred and discrimination of promiscuous women. As it's already been discussed, there are ways to live an active safe life and avoid pregnancy. It is absurd to condemn someone over the mere possibility of pregnancy. Why should a girl who has successfully avoided pregnancy by the correct use of contraceptives be victim of bigotry in the hands of society? It is not fair. Similarly, there are women who accept the responsibility of their mistakes, and become caring and loving mothers. These brave women shouldn't fall under the judgemental eye of society either. A group can never, ever be judged based on the behavior of some of its individuals, this means all promiscuous females should not be judged on the behalf of their irresponsible peers. So, instead of judging promiscuity, society should put the pressure over irresponsibility. In other words, as long as the woman is not causing the social damages of giving birth to an unwanted child and neglecting him or her, she has no reason to be criticised. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. This is even less of a reason to endorse "slut shaming". Again, people who are promiscuous but have taken measures to remain clean have no reason to be frowned upon. Assuming people received the appropriate sex education my case is arguing for, there should be no doubts concerning the risks of sexual acts. If one party decides to engage in a sex act with another party, he or she does it in full understanding of the risk that implies getting infected. Contrarily, if a person unknowingly contracts a disease it is not a problem of promiscuity but of sexual ignorance. Finally, I will address the portion of the debate where my opponent argues promiscuity is a cause of rape, and should therefore be rejected. Let me reduce this un-cited argument with an example. It is known that middle and high class citizens are more likely to be targeted by kidnappers. Do we ask them to stop earning money? Do we judge them for having large amounts of money? No, it would be illogical, they make money because they obtain pleasure from it. The same applies to our issue: women should be careful, the same way affluent individuals take safety measures to prevent kidnapping, but they should not be told to give up an active sex life just to prevent rape. Moreover, this debate is not about promiscuity being right or wrong, or about the pros and cons of abstinence versus promiscuity. This debate is about women having a right to practice sex freely, without being discriminated. It needs to be understood that the mere fact of having frequent and casual sex has no immoral value on its own. It's an issue of the tolerance and acceptance (not necessarily approval) that these women deserve. Sources:[1] Underhill, K; Operario, D, Montgomery, P (2007 Oct 17). Operario, Don. ed. "Abstinence-only programs for HIVinfection prevention in high-income countries"[2] Kohler, Pamela; Lafferty, William (2008 Apr). "Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy". Journal of Adolescent Health[3] Effective Sex Education, Brigid McKeon, 2006[4] "Planned Parenthood IUD Birth Control" - Mirena IUD

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

Thank you for the argument Con. Rebuttal 1: "...a mother that is supposed to love her child in every way, a indescribable loving way..." This is a valid point, however the validity of this point goes only to serve the selfish interest of the mother. A child that is born into an impoverished family, a family with consistent reoccurring drug problems, a family simply not ready for a baby (youth) and a number of other realities bring that baby into the world with a host of problems. If the mother truly loved the child in the manner which you say then these situations would not exist, however they do exist and will continue to exist if abortion is illegal. I don't think that abortion should be illegal as there are instances were it is beneficial for the family. There are many instances were abortion was not the correct choice, but infringing on someone's rights to pursue their own choices is never correct.

Wait, this is all a ploy to justify abortion as a crude way to fight overpopulation and not because of the Woman's right to choose?........ There are much more ethical and more practical ways to fight overpopulation in the areas where it actually exists. Nations that are more modernized, educated, have longer average life spans, and have the highest GDP per capita have far lower birthrates than countries that do not. In the image below countries in the red have a net zero growth or may even be SHRINKING population wise, green areas have higher birth rates and are areas that are way less educated and much poorer than other nations. Point is, abortion isnt the miracle key to stopping overpopulation, just making women educated has a drastic effect on population growth for a country. Brazil alone cut birthrates by 60% and one of the biggest reasons this even happened isnt because of abortions, but because of soap operas!http://www.npr.org..."Over population is Dangerously increasing in the US and worldwide"Funny since there a good number of nations that are shrinking in population.... Japan is expected to lose a fourth of its population by 2050 and abortion hasnt caused this trend at all, people just stopped having children completely. Similar trends have been seen in South Korea and numerous countries in Europe toohttp://www.businessweek.com..."Speaking objectively a woman whom decides last minute to abort a fetus has the right to (1) if they come into a financial crisis" I agree with this because in my OPINION women should be able to. However others might disagree and they have the right to still protest against this for whatever reasons they have. "(2) it would benefit the population in all if more fetus's would be aborted"Which is a complete lie"(3) if the child came down with a defect or a problematic disorder"That has a good chance of being misdiagnosed in the first place and might not even be a lethal condition that people could live perfectly normal lives with...."but in a late trimester if a mother decides they are not competent to be a parent,"One doesnt simply decide if they are incompetent to be a parent, they chicken out. And there is is a nice long period of 7 months for those parents to make up their mind and for those 7 months they felt they were competent to be parents, I for one think it would be sad because a perfectly healthy fetus was aborted days before it would be born because one of the parents got cold feet when they could very well be a great parent..."Religion is the factor that makes the moral question come in to play"There are 250 athiests on this site alone who are against abortion (credit to Phantom for that info) so the morality of aborting a fetus isnt purely religious.... " In animal kingdom, children born are used as food for the mother or father"Because that happens all the time in HUMAN culture (end sarcasm)"To say that abortion in the final trimester is wrong is saying that every culture is wrong"And what twisted f*cked up logic are you basing that off of? Cultures arent centered around late term abortion and there certainly isnt any way that a culture can be "wrong". You may approve or disapprove of a culture but you cant say that it is right or wrong, and you also cant claim that anybody who doesnt approve of late term abortion thinks all cultures are wrong because thats got to be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard....." You must understand a culture before you understand its views, as you must understand the individual person and their surroundings before making the choice for them"You dont need to understand a culture to understand its views... People across cultures they know nothing about can have the same opinions on a topic......"When you say pro-life is pro-choice you negate the meaning. Pro-life is not a choice its a force."I dont know what bubble gum wrapper the Pro is reading all of this off of but he has clearly lost track of what we are debating here. Pro-choice isnt the only choice, people have a legitimate reason to want to be pro life whether its baout regular abortion or late term abortion. I personally am indifferent towards abortion in general, but towards late term abortion I have an issue with it because for me a late trimester fetus is perfectly human, which for me means that late term abortion can be seen by some as a form of murder. Is late term abortion murder? No one can say for sure, but there are people who think that late term abortion is murder, and that sounds like a damn good reason to be pro-life to me. Pro-choice isnt the only choice, pro-life can be perfectly justified, therefore the resolution is negated. I now will take me leave, but before I do I would like to remind you (the Pro) that this will be the day you remember as the day that you almost defeated.....Captain.... Jack..... Sparrow.....;D

I am arguing the contrary position. Your argument is that there should be restrictions. My argument is that there should not be restrictions. Do you forfeit?