Question: Should the Option for Abortion be Legally Available?

Abortion should not be permitted, in my view! When a pregnant woman is tragically murdered, the perpetrator is charged with a double homicide, indicating that the law recognizes the unborn child as a separate human being. Given this, how can abortion remain legal? From the instant of conception, an unborn child is a unique individual deserving of the opportunity to experience life's potential, and we should extend this basic right to these defenseless unborn beings!

It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits of a full-grown human person. It will also inevitably accumulate all of the rights that you yourself have. If we deprive the unborn of life via abortions, however, they will be deprived of all of this potential and future rights. This is why extending a right to life is of utmost importance; the future of the unborn depends on it.

Societies around the globe recognize parents as having certain responsibilities. If a teenage driver gets into a car accident, it is the parents that are responsible for paying for the damage. The law in this case recognizes that the child should not be responsible. The decision to have an abortion is a serious one, as the Proposition has already agreed. Parents have a role in society to protect their children from dangers and things that may harm them. If we as a global society require parents to take responsibility, we need to ensure that they have a corresponding right to the information that will allow them to act. Having an abortion is a surgical procedure. If a child were having his tonsils out, the hospital would require a signed form from the parents giving them permission to perform the surgery. An abortion is no different. There are always risks with medical procedures and parents have a right to know what is happening with their child. The decision whether or not to terminate the pregnancy does not only affect the mother. If she decides not to keep the baby, whether it is through abortion or adoption, the emotional ramifications of that decision will affect the parents as the teen experiences them. If the teen decides to keep the child, the parents are affected in more ways than one. They will likely be the ones that are responsible for supporting the baby financially as most teenage mothers are unemployed. They will also be responsible for the care of the child during school hours while the teen is attending classes. The majority of society expects no less of them. The decision to allow a teen to obtain an abortion affects the parents as much as it does the teen, and therefore they should have the right to be a part of that decision.

"Our view on women's choice: Ultrasound mandates in abortions cross a line." USA Today Editorial. May 9th, 2010: "the law [in Oklahoma] intrudes far deeper into people's medical decisions than anything in the controversial new federal health care law."

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

Disabled people aren't just asexual. We're both adult male and female oh and not to forget transexual . More to the point if we're female just like other non disabled women we want the right to have control over our own bodies[[ National Union of Students "Liberation Officers in Every Union"http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/2007_liberation_officers]] . While there may be a high amount of people being aborted further restrictions or a blanket ban is not the way about eliminating the prejudice towards disabled people which can easily be shown by people who are anti abortion in other ways. Instead more opportunities should be given to provide information to women who are going through pre-natal tests or thinking about the possibility of having one. Also pro choice groups like abortion rights support the social model supporting the equal treatment of people with physical disabilities, something that includes over access to abortion. [[ Abortion Rights "statement on disability" http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/40/129/%5D%5D

Nothing wrong with persuading women against abortion.

Kristin Luker, Dubious Conceptions (1996) - "..The fact that only poor women are denied reproductive freedom when abortions are illegal is unpersuasive to those who oppose abortion on moral grounds."

Abortion is no simple matter, and it involves mature considerations of all options available. The Opposition believes that most minors are simply not mature enough to make decisions that are in their best interest. This is especially because they are more vulnerable to impulses and sensitive to the slightest pressures. While we acknowledge that teenage girls might be afraid of informing their parents of their wish to obtain an abortion, or of their pregnancy at all, we also believe that for most pregnant teens, parents play a vital role in making decisions that are in their best interest. The most important decision-making centres of the brain are simply not fully developed in teens. “The greatest changes to the parts of the brain that are responsible for functions such as self-control, judgment, emotions, and organization occur between puberty and adulthood. This may help to explain certain teenage behavior that adults can find mystifying, such as poor decision-making, recklessness, and emotional outbursts.”[[http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/may02factsheetadolbraindev.pdf]] Because their children are not intellectually developed, it is only reasonable to enact laws that protect teens and offer them the best chance possible to make a decision that is in their best interests. Teens facing pregnancy are understandably afraid and often embarrassed. Without the laws in place to ensure that they reach out, they may opt to keep it secret from their parents, depriving themselves of the very support they need.

Every right includes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life.

Many pro-life activists act violently in opposition to abortion. There are many examples of the bombing of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and the harassment of abortion workers. This is wrong, and undermines the case against abortion.


Question: Should the Practice of Abortion be Permitted Legally?

The federal government should not prohibit abortion.

Counterargument:
1. I concur that the fetus is human. Human Rights Proponent asserts that the right to life is enshrined in the Constitution. Since its inception, the Constitution has been amended 17 times and interpreted countless times by the Supreme Court, indicating that the law as written is not necessarily how the law should remain. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court determined that a woman's right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to her decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and the potentiality of human life. The government does not entirely disregard the rights of fetuses, but rather establishes criteria for when their right to life takes precedence over the mother's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. This right begins at fetal viability, when the fetus can survive outside of the mother's body. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that individuals have the right to bodily autonomy and the right to their own person. For example, in Cruzan v. Missouri, the Court ruled that people can refuse medical treatment even if it would result in their death. Indeed, we have the right to use our bodies as we see fit, regardless of other people's opinions. If I want to get a tattoo or have a baby, I have that right whether others approve or not. Proponent argues that "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." However, consider euthanasia, which is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. Ending a life is not necessarily murder, and Proponent has not demonstrated this to be the case. Consider why killing humans is considered murder but killing animals is not. This is because animals do not have the same level of sentience as humans. While fetuses have the potential for sentience at some point, until that point, they do not and should not have the same rights as those who have already achieved this criterion. We do not grant rights based on potential. We do not give 16-year-olds the legal right to drink just because they have the potential to turn 21. We base rights on the present, which is why some fetuses have the right to life and some do not. In my arguments, I will contend that the right to life should be based on a level of sentience, even for human beings. Proponent notes that "Whenever

It is lamentable how Opposition confuses abortion with a momentary whim such as piercings, trips, or even bad habits, as abortion is none of these. Unlike team Canada, we believe that pregnancy cases exist where parental consent for abortion is counterproductive and deplorable. The fact that parents have to consent to other regular surgeries does not automatically mean that they should do so in the case of abortion. Opposition is asserting again, rather then providing explanation and analysis for their claims. In case of pregnancy and abortion it is the minor who will have to deal with the consequences - parents of the minor will not have to carry the baby for nine months or (in most cases) raise it. Minors can for example consent on their own to services related to childbirth - and even to delivery by cesarean section, a far more dangerous procedure than abortion. Therefore, there can be no health-related reason for denying them the right to consent on their own to abortion. [[Heather Boonstra and Elizabeth Nash, "Minors and the Right to Consent to Health Care" 3 The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 4, 6-7 (Aug. 2000)]] We agree that abortion is a difficult procedure but so is childbirth. Abortion is actually safer than childbirth (which we assume will happen when parents refuse to consent) and teens are 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a legal abortion performed in the first trimester. [[http://tinyurl.com/3yefvge]] If we really have the minor's best interest in mind, we should give them an opportunity of safe abortion which is denied by requiring parental consent, often leading to back alley abortions as we explained in our fourth argument. The society is ultimately responsible for girls dying or having permanent heath damage because we allowed their parents to interfere in their private life. Yes, abortion is serious but so are the alternatives. It should be up the minor weigh the risks and decide for herself about her future life.

Initiating the legalisation of prostitution would grant implicit approval to a dangerous and immoral practice. Prostitution should never be regarded as a legitimate career option for a young girl.

Women are not required to look at the ultrasound image, even if doctors are required to show it. This means that it is ultimately the women's choice as to whether to look at the images. Nobody is holding a woman down and taping their eyes open. As with her choice to have an abortion, ultrasounds fully respecting their rights to free choice.

Zack Krajacic. "Serious about reducing abortion? Make women see an ultrasound of the procedure." Christian Science Monitor. January 7th, 2010: "Some might object to a law that could produce such a strong influence, but abortion providers and organizations like Planned Parenthood, who profit from performing abortions, exert their own influence right now in the opposite direction. In other words, the abortion decision in its current state is not a pure one – it is tainted with various motives. Is it not better to influence women to refrain from having an abortion than to persuade them to have one? Indeed, a lower abortion rate resulting from the free and voluntary choices of well-informed women should be welcome news to everybody. After all, even the most ardent pro-choice advocates, including President Obama, insist that nobody is for abortion and that everyone wants to reduce the number of abortions. Naomi Wolf, a feminist author and supporter of abortion rights, described abortion in a 1995 essay as a 'necessary evil.' As a guest on Fox News’s 'Hannity' last fall, Steve Murphy, a Democratic strategist, said he and other pro-choice advocates are morally opposed to abortion, but they feel it is important to ensure it remains a woman’s choice. In fact, every pro-choice advocate I have ever come across has stressed that they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion."

Some people believe killing is never justified. Some people believe that it can be justified. Neither group is necessarily "right". Neither group is likely to ever change their positions. These are legitimate differences of opinion that must be respected, and no laws should be created that are intolerant of these differences.

Abortions are very risky and hazardous to the women

When you see someone who has very little, do you take away all he has? The short life expectancy of a disabled child does not justify his deliberate killing!

Abortion prevents victims of rape from becoming unready mothers

This argument is partly a response to studies that claim that there is a correlation between abortion and mental disorders. The point is that this might be true, but the causality of this correlation must be determined. It may be that those with existing mental disorders are more likely to take risks that lead to the need for abortion, and that this is the explanation for the correlation, rather than that abortion leads to mental disorders.

"Back alley" abortions are more frequent when abortion is illegal.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should be universally prohibited. The act of abortion is morally reprehensible, akin to taking the life of an innocent unborn child. If a woman has the right to choose abortion, then the child should inherently have the right to life. To argue in favor of abortion is to essentially advocate for the killing of a defenseless infant. This stance is not only in conflict with religious teachings, but also with basic moral principles, and it should be legally condemned as it is essentially endorsing murder.

Dear Miss, thank you for your fast answering, I will try working through your argumentation and contribute my opinions to it. First of all, I agree that my religious reasoning's are not based on statistics or facts, but simply on beliefs. So seeing you seem to like statistics a lot, I will change my way of arguing from a ethnically point of view to one more fitting for this debate. Seeing that 61% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the fetal heartbeat has begun,[1]which occurs in the first month of pregnancy, I think I am not alone in my beliefs, whether they may be religious or morally or ethnically. 72% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the first 3 months of pregnancy.[2] 86% of Americans say abortion should be illegal after the first 6 months of pregnancy.[3] Only 6% -17% of Americans (depending on how the question is asked and by whom) believe abortion should be legal at any time, in all circumstances.[4] I am not quite sure if you are one of those 6-17%, but if you are, you are a minority in the USA and that with reason. I can agree that taking the bible into account is risky for a debate. Of course when people refer to something as essential like the ten Commandments, other like to go on and quote quite unfitting verses like woman should not be allowed to wear clothes of different fabrics to go against it. Yes, we all know that there are many quite debatable verses and rules in the bible, it is an old book, written by many, but the ten Commandments are pillars of moral and ethnically ways of living and I think one should be allowed to refer to them without being ridiculed for it by being answered with random quotes just to let the bible appear like a silly, old book. Sadly, even if the dictionary part of your argumentation is quite refreshing, I have to disagree here. There is none to little justification or excuse for abortion nowadays and this is based on a statistic from the Institute Guttmacher: In the last 25 years Guttmacher has conducted two major studies asking women why they chose abortion and their answers have remained basically the same: Only 7% of women report that their abortion was because of a health reason or a possible health problem with the baby, and less than half a percent report that their abortion was because they became pregnant as a result of rape. 92% of abortions in America are purely elective"-- done on healthy women to end the lives of healthy children.[5] So sadly almost 100% of Abortions are done because of selfishness. Because of irresponsibility or simply because a child would not fit into their life (at the moment). I do not exactly know what to do with your comparison to breaking and entering. I find it horribly disrespectful and slightly disgusting to compare a foetus, a pregnancy to something like breaking&entering. But, I will try argue in your spectrum here: We are talking about a being, about a child. Did it wish to 'enter' your home? No, you decided to let it in. You let the 'door' wide open, because you wished to have unprotected 'party' and then the child is being left in your floor. And you notice it after your 'party' and decide to take a sharp scalpel to scratch the child attached to your floor from it and kick it out of your door, because franky, you have no time or gusto to nourish it and take care of it. This very colourful and picture-heavy argumentation can be quickly used against you, so I would not advice to continue with it. I will not argue further about eggs and chickens here with you. I do not think that you can compare an egg with a foetus in your body. Or any kind of animal with a human being. Furthermore I will refrain from going more into detail about the question of weighing one life with the other. This is, like you are reminding me here, not up to debate. I do not think you quite understand my point of view yet. Yes, a woman should have the right to seek for medical care, I cannot disagree with you, when an abortion is needed because of her health. But because of other reasons, like the ones you just used? Because they are not ready yet? If you are not financially ready? So, you think it is morally justifiable to deny a 'being' (since you refuse to call it human being) to live, because the parents have sex, unprotected (or, like you pointed out, even with protection, but it failing,) and the woman gets pregnant. This is a point I would like to further discuss, because I think that this is the core of it. Young people nowadays brush off responsibilities. Nowadays young people think they cannot afford a child. And who can blame them with the industry and politics offering them all kinds of ways for it? Of course, if abortion is legal, if contraceptives are given out without valid reasons, people lose themselves in irresponsibility, in careless behaviour. They do not think: "How will I be able to live with this new addition to my life, to this change?" - No, society makes them think: "What is the easiest way for me to avoid responsibility for what I have done?" And we cannot even fault them completely for it. Nowadays children are expensive, yes. Nowadays one job barely covers your own costs. Nowadays the concept of family, of life and children and the sainthood of it. So I think rather than legalizing abortion, we should educate our children, our young generation. Instead of shoving abortions, contraceptives or other medical exits at young woman, telling them that they should carry on careless and without regret about consequences " we should try to educate them on healthy family dynamics, we should use money on helping them arrange a life with a child. We should educate them about how to earn and use money the right way, we should not go: Okay, this woman cannot afford a child, kill it when it is still in the womb and does not cost anything. No, I beg to differ! We should ask: "Why?" Why is this woman so desperate, so uneducated, so careless about the life growing in her womb? Why does it not matter to her? Why does her child not matter to her? Why would she rather kill it, or erase it, than carry it out? "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women." --Feminists For Life That is why. This here is why we should not legalize abortion but rather try find the core of the problem. Do not say: Let us give them even more opportunities to continue this kind of life, to be careless and afraid of responsibilities. Say: Let us give them the needed education to be ready for it. Let us give them the help, the money, the support. Let us change so the woman does not need abortion. Let us not take the easy way out. Not when there are life"s, potential human life"s on stake. [1]Zogby International Poll, April 15-17, 2004. [2] Humphrey Taylor, "The Harris Poll #18," Harris Interactive, Inc., March 3, 2005. [3] Ibid. [4] A recent Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus survey found that only 6% of Americans believe "abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy." See "Abortion in America," Marist Poll/Knights of Columbus, July 2009, accessed March 16, 2011, http://www. kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/548612.html. Another survey found that 17% believe "abortion should be legal in all cases. See "Religion and the Issues: Results from the 2010 Annual Religion and Public Life Survey," Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, September 17, 2010 (17% believe "abortion should be legal in all cases"), accessed March 16, 2011, http://pewforum.org.... [5]Lawrence B. Finer et al., 113-14. This survey shows women have abortions for the following reasons: 25% "not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong" 23% "can't afford a baby now" 19% "have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown" 8% "don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems" 7% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young" 6% "other" (this category had no further explanation) 4% "would interfere with education or career plans" 4% "physical problem with my health" 3% "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" -0.5% "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion" -0.5% "parents want me to have an abortion" -0.5% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant" -0.5% "was a victim of rape"

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

Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says "baby-making machine" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe "home" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. " [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. " [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can "unplug," as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193

Thank you for allowing me to debate this issue with you. Since you gave no real background on what your stance is, I am going to guess that you believe abortion is morally correct and can be performed. Abortion is basically the legalized killing of an unborn child. There can be many reasons, such as rape, incest, or the parents just don't want to care for the child. There is, however, a safer solution to these problems, which is a little thing people call "adoption". There are over 2 million infertile couples waiting for a child that they can raise, regardless of health issues, such as Down syndrome, Spina bifida, etc. However, only 1% of pregnant women searching for help will even inquire about adoptions. Abortions are depriving couples from having a child of their own, which is a very selfish tjhing to do in many people's eyes, including my own. Brown, Kristi Burton. Adoption: Why So Many Choose the First and What We Can Do. Live Action News. www.livenews.com.15 May. 2012. 21 Jan. 2013. http://www.lifenews.com...... I also believe that life begins at conception, therefore that child is a person who has the right to live. In 1982, Ronald Reagan stated that all people, particularly unborn children, as stated by the Declaration of Independence, are untitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A fetus is not senseless a mass of tissue, it is a precious living human child that has not yet experienced life, and by aborting it, you are depriving it of that right. Abortion, based on these few examples is morally wrong and should not be tolerated in the world today.

Abortion as murder A woman's body knows to dispel a fetus if it has any serious mutations that would prevent it from becoming a functional human being. This is why babies are never born without major organs, since the woman miscarries long before the fetus is carried to term. Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature. Hence the argument that abortion is a living things fails because of nature. Considering what has been said, the logical conclusion is that abortion isn't murder. However the law is right when it says that if a man murders a pregnant woman then he should be charged with two murders. For the woman lost her opportunity to have a child. In this case fetus is like an unborn child which hasn't been born due to murder. However when abortion happens (naturally or not) then the fetus isn't like an unborn child hence its not a murder. In addition, Brian Elroy points out that the other distinctive feature of a "person" is what we know as "consciousness." In many ways, killing an animal for meat is more inhumane than ending the contingent life of a fetus because the fetus cannot feel pain at that point in its development but the animal can. Until my points are refuted, I correctly stand in the position of legalizing abortion. Now I present my reasons: The drive to ban ALL abortions is driven by the religious right. It is based on the believe that a human soul is created at the moment of conception. What moral prerogative would assume the right of the mother can be trumped by the 'rights' of an embryo. Within the first three months or trimester, we are talking about a mass of largely undifferentiated cells. The only reason one could even claim such an absurd sacrifice of the mother to this none human cell mass; is because of religious claim of soul intervention within those cells. Why do I use the word sacrifice. Because if a women are prevented from having an abortion because of government laws, then by definition she is no longer in ownership of her own body and her right to abort an embryo or indeed a fetus, is sacrificed to government intervention. Just because a woman becomes pregnant, does not mean that she has sacrificed the right to do with her own body what she so chooses and that includes having an abortion. The other argument apart from the religious claim of a soul being placed in the embryo at conception, is that to abort an embryo is to kill a human being. This is simply scientifically false. An embryo has no attributes by which one could define it as human. Thus, to call embryo destruction murder is about as absurd as it gets. The other claim often made is that of potentiality. An embryo has the potential to become human, therefore it should be granted rights based on potential possible future probabilities. If that was the standard, then by the same definition every male sperm is a potential human being and government laws should be passed to prevent male masturbation... because in doing so one is causing a holocaust of potential human beings. The aborting of fetuses as apposed to embryos, often brought up by pro-life demonstrators, is a 'red herring' argument. The fact is that most abortions are performed in the first trimester embryonic stage. When fetuses are aborted it is almost always because of a serious birth defect or because of complications that put the woman's life at risk.

My opponent's arguments almost invariably rely on the premise that abortion is not homicide - or that foetuses have no right to life. Obviously if this premise were true then all of Pro's arguments would be be perfectly correct. If we only consider the welfare of the mother then it is clear that we ought to allow her to abort safely and easily. However if the premise is false, and abortion is indeed homicide, then my opponent is guilty of making false syllogisms. Note that I will be arguing that abortion should not be legal in all cases apart from cases where the mother would be under severe physical risk if she were to continue the pregnancy. Why abortion is homicide P1: Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus by another, P2: Homicide is the killing of one human being by another, (1) P3: A human foetus is a human being, C: Abortion is homicide Homicide is illegal (apart from justified homicide, but abortion does not fall under this bracket), and so if abortion is homicide, then it logically follows that abortion should also be illegal. I do not know which (if any) of my premises my opponent disputes, so I will wait until he/she voices her objections. Response to Pro My opponent's main argument is that 'Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion'. However, this is a nonsensical argument to use in opposition to outlawing abortion. We outlaw actions because they are immoral (in general), irrespective of whether outlawing the action would actually stop the action. For example, outlawing theft does not stop theft, but it is non sequitur to suppose that this is any reason to legalise theft. The same applies to murder, slavery, torture and many other horrible things. Pro also seems to have forgotten the fact that pregnant women choose to have an illegal abortion, it's not as if they are forced into it against their will (even in cases of this, the problem to be dealt with is to punish the person who forces the woman to abort, not to legalise abortion). Therefore, as women choose to have an illegal abortion, knowing that it is a dangerous procedure, they are willingly putting themselves in danger and therefore they are partially culpable. The woman can simply choose to not have an abortion. Ultimately, abortion is not a necessity. My opponent raises the problem of pregnancies caused by rape, and goes on to liken it to a forced organ donation. Yet this is a poor analogy for two reasons: 1. There is an unique obligation in society for parents to protect their children, yet there is no obligation to protect other people. If we change the analogy to a scenario where a young child will die if his mother does not donate a kidney to him, it would be abhorrent for the mother to then refuse to do so. 2. Refusing to donate a kidney to someone who needs it in order to live is different to directly killing someone. The former is just letting someone die naturally, whereas the latter is the direct and deliberate murder of someone. Abortion is the direct killing of the foetus, whereas refusing to donate a kidney is letting someone die naturally. Pro goes on to say that legal abortion is necessary to allow medically necessary abortions (which I take to mean cases where the abortion is to save the mother's life). Apart from the fact that it is perfectly possible to allow medically necessary abortions and not abortions in other circumstances, only 0.00014% (2) of abortions in the past ten years in the UK have been to save the mothers life. It is absurd to suggest that we should make the 99.99986% other abortions legal for such a negligible minority of cases, especially considering then in every single one of these cases a human life is destroyed unjustly. The last argument presented is that legal abortion is a relatively safe procedure. Yet this only considers the safety of the mother, it is the most unsafe procedure possible for the foetus. Furthermore, just because something is safe it does not mean that it should be legal. Tax avoidance is safe, but it does not follow that tax avoidance should be legal. I will now pass the debate over to Pro. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) https://www.gov.uk...

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

There are many hypothetical situations that go along with why abortion shouldn't be allowed. However, from a realistic standpoint, an attempt to restrict the abortions would rise not only the percentage of illegal and unsafe abortions but also the expenses of the procedure. A new law would be needed to tackle the illegal abortions and further legal hassles would have no ends. All in all, if you stop abortion, it will cause more problems than what people have started already today.

RefutationShe doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption. She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy. A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy. A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life.Again, a woman who is able to keep a pregnancy for that long will not be hurt from going through the rest of the pregnancy. Afterwhich, she is free too put it up for adoption.All in all, a woman's property rights are not a sufficient reason to deny someone elses right to life.Defense1)ponent does not get my analogy so I will explain it for her. We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong.2)better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?' The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks. The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away.3) The woman is a valuable member to society, and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly. A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion.

I will be the proposition and will set the movement:The mechanism This house believes that the abortion of fetuses before the 12th week is moral and should be legal. I know that it is legal. I would love it if somebody who knew what they were talking about would take the case of the opposition. The rounds will be :Round 1 = Prop mechanism and op openingRound 2 = prop main arguments and op rebuttalRound 3 = Extension on any points previously madeRound 4 = summary speechOk round 2, my main argument (PS screw you, my youtube videos are amazing, I hate you! I hate you! aaaaaaaaaaahuhuhu! :( Sorry, sorry about that, I just, I just really love my youtube videos. ) Anyway, some arguments! SentienceRight, so this is the main argument the proposition will be using. Up until the 12th week of pregnancy, the fetus remains and non-sentient (not alive or conscious) extension of the mother. The fetus is not alive up until this point and as such there is no wrong in removing it from the mother. If the mother wants this extra bit of flesh removed from her body, fine. Let her. It is a woman's right to have control over her pregnancy. 9 times out of 10 the reason a woman will go through with the abortion procedure for 1 of 2 reasons. 1 the woman did not get pregnant on purpose and does not wish or is not ready to bring up a child.2, there is serious medical conditions with the baby which will make it's life a worse thing than not having that life to begin with. So a sub-point :Up bringing. So what do you think the chances are of the non aborted child having a good life? Well, let's look at the evidence. In 2011 91% of abortions in the UK were carried out before the 13th week of gestation. And 78% before the 10th week. Medical abortions accounted for up to 47% of the total. And 1% were carried out because of fear that the child would be handicapped. ( This means handicapped to the point where they could still live a happy life, not something like downs syndrome. ) So looking at these stats do you really think women who get abortions are baby killing monsters, or just women who got pregnant accidentally or who's child would be seriously disabled? The latter? I thought so. So let's think of a woman who did not get a child aborted. She got pregnant accidentally ( because who would abort a child they tried for? ) and doesn't have the money or time to bring up a child. What do you think the chances are that the child will be put up for adoption. They are actually 1 in 5000. And with 69000 children in the UK born every year, that is a high chance. If they aren't adopted, how do you think they will live. They will put strain on their mothers for food and money. Ultimately, they will drag the family into debt. I am not saying you should value money over life, but if a woman doesn't think she can bring up a child happily then she probably didn't get pregnant on purpose and should be able to get that child adopted. Remember the mechanism I can't stress this enough, we are talking about abortion up to the 12th week of gestation. No later. Do not ignore the mechanism. You are trying to prove that it is immoral and should be illegal.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should be legally permitted during the first trimester. Abortion should always be available as a choice. Consider genetic disorders like Tay-Sachs, instances of rape, individuals with dwarfism, incest, young teenage girls in abusive households, or those at risk of being harmed or killed due to pregnancy complications. It is essential to acknowledge the potential health risks posed by pregnancies involving individuals with AIDS or other serious illnesses. Ignoring these circumstances would be highly irresponsible.

Thanks for taking the challenge Miserlou :-) we should all be a little open minded right? Here we go... Abortion was legal in the beginning, It was common and thought to be acceptable. The real reason abortion was made illegal was because of health reasons for the Mother. It was common among Native Americans and common in colonial times but in the 1800s laws were passed to stop the procedure. The middle of the 20th century safer cleaner and more advanced procedures came about and in 1973 Roe v. Wade overturned all abortion laws in the United States. Abortion is Natural as the body itself, aborts up to 20 percent of all pregnancies. Obviously in many cases a healthy mother's life could be in danger and many times this comes with a high chance of loosing the baby also. In these cases it is only logical to abort the baby for the sake of the healthy mother.

I will be taking the Pro side of the debate: "Abortion shold be legal." First and foremost I would like to thank the Con for the opportunity to debate this topic! I would like to take this opportunity to define the argument further and common terminology that will be used. DefinitionsAbortion: : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus [1]Legal: Permitted by law. [2]Argument structure:Abortion has a number of gray areas, one common one which the Con defined in her first argument was that of rape. If it is amiable to the Con, I would like to look only at black and white of the subject and leave the gray areas be. The argument will be looked at only in terms of legality. I look forward to the debate!Sources:1.) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.)https://www.google.com...

Women are given the freedom of choice,thus they choose if they would like to abort a child or not. Although the U.S Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, A fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is fully dependent on its mother,unlike born human beings.Even if a fetus was alive the "right to life" does not imply the right to use another persons body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs,even if doing so would save someone else's life. Also, the "right to life" does not imply a right to live by threatening another persons life. Child birth is always a threat to the mother, she can die from child birth. Source:https://www.law.cornell.edu... Abortions are one of the safest procedures done in medicine, when preformed by trained professionals of course. According to the NCBI "The risk of death by child birth is 14 times higher than that of abortion". Humans are given the freedom of choice. Abortion is also legal, so women should be allowed to have an abortion if they would like. If the child is born with a disability and will live a short,painful death, then the mother should be able to make the choice if they want to keep the child. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I can say it is a benefit because I believe it benefits the western world ,by which I mean the EU and the USA and other fully developed countries, because it helps women who would not be able to provide for a child and it also helps women who have been raped. For example; in the U.S, 1.04 million abortions were conducted in 2012 according to a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute in 2014. The amount of births recorded that year (2012) was 3.95 million. As you can see by these figures, women do exercise their right to abortion and do so with the intent of securing themselves with a better life until they are ready to become mothers. Are you able to provide substantial evidence and opinions as to how it is considered killing? The foetus which develops in a mother's womb does not develop a significantly functioning brain until the third trimester which means that its consciousness isn't developed until that time. If you consider abortion killing, I assume you think so because you think you're killing a human being with a conscience, but all legal practices do not perform the procedure after the third trimester which would mean that abortions do not kill conscious humans. I do not accept your third claim because of the fact that it was not formed in a grammatically correct way. I do not accept your fourth claim either because it is also not formulated correctly. Please use proper grammar in the future. Resources: http://www.lifematterstv.org... http://www.babycenter.com...

God has given us the gift of choice. Abortion is a choice. If a woman is raped and impregnated... why should she have to keep the baby? Every day she sees that child, she will be reminded of that incident. If a woman has medical issues, and if she gives birth she will die...you're saying she should have to die? Think of third world countries. People with seven kids and all of them are skeletons because the parents can't afford to feed them? It's bad to abort, when the child will end up dying from starvation or disease? It's bad to not end the life before they suffer? And every single child can not be adopted or sponsored...not every person can be forbidden to have sex. Will they abort anyways? Probably not, but it's an example. Think of a woman that gets pregnant. She can't even pay for her own food bills. How is she going to pay for a child? She won't be able to afford proper prenatal care...and not every person in that situation will have someone financially backing them that wants that baby. She won't be able to work during a certain time during her late pregnancy, so who will pay her bills then? So wouldn't it be better to abort the child?

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

Good evening Miss and thank you for challenging me to such a delicate topic and sharing your opinions with me and your wish to discuss it. In all respect, I disagree with your opinions and reasoning for legalizing abortion and I hope by the end of this debate you will see and understand my position and maybe even think again about what you have written. First of. I am of the opinion that sex is a sacred act between a woman and a man. It should not be degraded to simple orgasms, only for lust and pleasure and losing all sainthood, because this is sadly what it is becoming those days in our society. God designed sex for us to make life, not just to gain pleasure. Sex is something sacred and it should be done only by loved and preferable married couples. Pre-marital sex is a quickly done mistake nowadays, and many people including the youth and adolescents may be tempted to it because of the easy universal access to contraception. But this is only my opinion and I know it is heavily religious, like you already pointed out. For me life is sacred, given by God and an abortion is the act of murdering a being that cannot defend itself. It is forbidden and a sin, already said in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder". How can a human touch the sanctity of life? How can you people think you have the right to touch something this beautiful, this unique? Something God gifted us with? How can you accept a mother to kill her own child, but punish others that kill? How can you know when a life starts? When a soul is there? Is it there after what - 2 Weeks? 10 weeks? After the child is born? Do you think God comes knocking on your "womb-door" after 12 weeks and says " oh all right, this child in here is ready to be considered a human now, so I will give it a soul? Furthermore - how can you blame a child, an unborn, defenceless human being for your irresponsibility? When you have sex, there is a risk of pregnancy. When you are incapable of protection, how can you take that out on that unborn child? Every person has a right to life, but you are taking that right away, ripping it out of your womb, because of your mistake, brushing off the responsibility by saying "it is not a person yet"? It is only a cell? How can you dare take the right to decide this? This is, of course, only the moral side of what I think. It is religious tinted, I will not even deny this. So, let me try to explain this in a scientifically way as well, because maybe this will help you understand why I am so saddened by people like you. The "classic" arguments from your side are collapsing under the weight of science. "No one knows when life begins" and "It's a blob of tissue" are frankly on the wane, especially in the context of surgical abortion, which is how the vast majority of abortions are done today. At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. Is it human? Is it alive? Is it just a cell or is it an actual organism, a "being?" These are logical questions. The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species. The new human zygote has a genetic composition that is absolutely unique from itself, different from any other human that has ever existed, including that of its mother. This DNA includes a complete "design," guiding not only early development but even hereditary. It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfils the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Finally, is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a human organism; that is, a human being? Scientists define an organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependant organs. The human zygote meets this definition with ease. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and ageing, ending with death. This coordinated behaviour is the very hallmark of an organism. Thus, the scientific evidence is quite plain: at the moment of fusion of human sperm and egg, a new entity comes into existence which is distinctly human, alive, and an individual organism - a living, and fully human, being. And you say that child in your womb is not a person "yet"? "Not a person" is a decidedly unscientific argument: it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with someone's own moral or political philosophy. We're either persons or property. So is this unborn child only property? But I disagree, young lady. This unborn child is NOT your property.

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

This debate is "should abortion be legal?" Short answer no... Long answer noooooooo... Lol, but seriously, Abortion is murder any way that you look at it. I am excited for an intelligent debate

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


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

The legality of abortion is a contentious issue, with many believing that it should remain legal. The reasons for supporting the legality of abortion are numerous and complex.

Firstly, women who choose to have an abortion often face significant risks and complications, including excessive bleeding, infection, damage to the uterus or cervix, and emotional distress. While some of these risks are rare, they are still a concern and should not be dismissed lightly. Women who are forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term may face even greater risks to their physical and mental health.

Secondly, some women are at risk of death if they were to give birth. This includes women who are known to be prone to complications during pregnancy or childbirth, such as those with pre-existing medical conditions or a history of previous complications. Forcing these women to carry a pregnancy to term could result in their death, which is a violation of their right to life.

Thirdly, some women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. In these cases, forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy to term is a form of punishment for the crime committed against her. It is also a violation of her bodily autonomy and her right to make decisions about her own body.

Fourthly, unwanted pregnancies can have a significant impact on a woman's life, particularly if she is a teenager or does not have the resources to care for a child. In these cases, abortion can be a necessary and responsible choice, allowing the woman to continue her education, pursue her career, or focus on her existing family.

Finally, the legality of abortion is a matter of personal choice and autonomy. Women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and their own futures, without interference from the government or other outside forces. The decision to have an abortion should be a personal one, made in consultation with a healthcare provider and based on the woman's own values and circumstances.

In summary, the legality of abortion is a complex issue with many valid arguments on both sides. However, the reasons for supporting the legality of abortion include the risks and complications faced by women who choose to have an abortion, the risk of death for some women if they were to give birth, the impact of unwanted pregnancies on women's lives, and the importance of personal choice and autonomy. These reasons make a strong case for the continued legality of abortion.

First off, if no one knows, then why do they become human, or why they had the abortion in the first place. Yes I agree the adoption agency needs some reforms, but you are saying that because of that, you are going to take a life. Plus if it isn't a life, then they would not be pregnant huh. Having abortion legal, leads to irresponsible women, that see themsleves as I can do what and want and fix it. A vote for the Aff, is a vote for dead babies and IF it were the Aff taking, then it would be a vote for possible dead babie? Vote neg, Abortion is tottaly unjust and wrong, it kills human beings and is never just.

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

Abortion should be illegal because many reasons, and here I will name a few: 1. It is unethical 2. An unborn baby is still a baby,babies are human beings, and therefore an unborn baby is still a human being. 3. Killing any human being is murder. 4. No person should be able to decide when another person should be killed.

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.

Opening Argument: Abortion, for most women who choose to have it, will take place within the first month of pregnancy - in fact, the vast majority of women who get abortions are fairly decided about that path and do not generally take long to get the procedure - which can either be done through oral means or through inserting a pill into the vagina, which is referred to as a 'medical abortion', or a 'surgical abortion', which involves inserting a tube into the vagina and dilating the cervix and manually removing the zygote, embryo or fetus. Given that most abortions do take place within the first month, it is only the zygote or embryo (collection of embryonic cells) that is being aborted and not a developing fetus. A zygote does not become an embryo until the third week, and an embryo does not become a fetus until the sixth week. [1.] http://news.bbc.co.uk... The reasons as to why some women abort can be varied - this is what statistics on abortion from the U.S state: 25% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'were not ready for a child'. 23% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'could not afford a baby'. 19% of surveyed women had an abortion because they were 'done having children'. 8% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'do not want to be a single mother'. 7% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'were not mature enough'. [2.] http://abort73.com... (see 'why do abortions occur?' In addition, direct medical problems either with the embryo or fetus or the woman can be why a small percentage of women abort - a heartbeat isn't detected until the third week of the embryonic stage, which, if you add another couple-few weeks for other physical abnormalities to develop, takes you past the first trimester of pregnancy - thus, the women who actually do get later abortions are those who have been told that the fetus is abnormal in some way. This is of course excluding the instance that they themselves are the ones with the problem - as in this scenario, fairly early abortions take place. It's important not to solely focus on abortions that are done for physical reasons, though. Women who abort for other reasons are usually not psychologically ready to have children and bare the responsibilities that motherhood brings. They are either too young, too financially unstable, or without sufficient support from a partner and family members (mostly, it's a combination of all three). This naturally begs the question of how humane it would be to actually *deny* women abortions when they are in no fit state to be taking care of the child. From any rational perspective, there is no sense in bringing a child into a world in which it may be unwanted, poor, and without adequate care from the people who both made it. Children require financial stability, emotional stability (e.g, two present parents) and guidance. They do not receive any of the above things with parents who are ill-equipped for parenthood.

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

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

That is a great article, and I definitely agree that once it is made illegal everything about it is public. I can also see your point about thinking of it being my child. I know there are other options other than abortion, and keeping my personal opinions out of it of whether I personally would agree with it for myself or not, I do believe that other women should at least be able to make the choice for themselves. There should be a time limit of course. No abortion should take place when it is almost a woman's due date. After Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal, Georgia made its own regulations. For example, one has to have parental consent if under age 18. The woman also has to have it down by a licensed official. Lastly, it has to be within the first trimester. If it is after the first trimester, the only way an abortion can legally be done is if the mother's life is in danger (which would be up to the discretion of the doctors). This is the most important regulation. There are women who are not physically capable of giving birth. Girls can get pregnant at 12 and 13 but that is not old enough to physically birth a child. Also one has to think about girls who may have not consented to sex and later found out they were pregnant. These women should be allowed to make major decisions about their own body; and the regulations that Georgia places on the law help to make it more humane and moral.

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.

You are right when you say it is a women's right to make a decision about her own body. But although the child is inside of you is it really your choice to kill it if it is its own person? By that i mean the baby is its own person he doesn't need your arm to scratch itself. of course you are the mother of that child but if you have a choice don't you think the baby does too? Satan laughs as mothers murder their own babies in the name of "freedom of choice". Therefore i feel you have no right. I agree with you when you say unwanted pregnancies can be very stressful. Being pregnant is not easy it comes with side effects and 9 months is a very long time but i believe if you honestly don't want the baby or you know you cannot take care of it as you explained your friend couldn't i think you shouldn't have to take care of it if you can't or don't want too and thats where adoption comes in you shouldn't have to kill a baby when you can give it to someone who feels they need it. Just being able to conceive is a blessing that many don't have and wish they were you. Also giving it away rather than killing it is better for ones health because 50% of women reported to have had an abortion also reported having emotional problem lasting years and I'm talking about depression,grief,fear of disclosure,sexual dysfunction,increase alcohol or drug abuse,nightmares,suicide,anniversary syndrome, and the list goes on. Another health issue it can produce is infertility, abruptio placenta, breast cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, and future ectopic pregnancy. so honestly would you rather risk hurting yourself than just giving it away ? When the health of the baby and mother are at risk for any reason i believe instead of aborting it they should do an emergency c-section. why ? because I've met several people who doctor actually told them to have an abortion or they would die and they knew that abortion was not an option so they went along with there pregnancy and can you believe all of them today are healthy as ever and so are there kids that would've never existed today if they went by what the doctors told them. killing a baby is never really the answer there will always be complications but to those complications there are always solution and abortion not being one of them. When you speak about abortion and rape i understand where you are coming from. Rape is horrible and to find out you pregnant from this tragedy is even worse but when you kill the baby your not making your nightmare disappear but killing a baby that really had nothing to do with it. do you think the baby knows that his biological father raped his mother. so should a child go to jail for what a parent did i don't think so. like i said adoption is always an option she doesn't have to keep it and have that reminder there she can give it away to someone who really wants it. In conclusion, I believe abortion is wrong because not only does it affect the baby but it affect you as a person and potentially affect your body in a negative way. Inside the womb or outside murder is murder and its not your choice to take a life but gods choice.