Question: Should the Legality of Abortion be Upheld?

Abortion should remain a legal option for women, despite personal beliefs or theological views. The decision to have an abortion is often complex, involving multiple factors such as education, work, financial stability, and relationship dynamics. Studies have shown that the majority of women who choose abortion do so because they fear the impact on their current responsibilities or their ability to provide for existing dependents. The assertion that women will regret their decision is unfounded, as research indicates that 87% of women feel highly confident about their choice, with 90% reporting relief as their primary reaction.

The legality of abortion is crucial in cases of rape, where the victim should not be forced to carry the child of their attacker. The frequency of rape-related pregnancies is often underestimated, with studies suggesting that 5% of rape victims aged 12 to 45 become pregnant, resulting in around 32,000 pregnancies annually. To further complicate matters, women who have been raped are subjected to additional trauma, including invasive medical procedures and potential legal battles to prove the assault. The question of the "rights of the rapist" also arises, as in 31 states, the perpetrator can still have legal rights over the child.

Women's ability to make decisions about their reproductive health is essential for their participation in society and their contribution to the economy. Financial constraints are a significant concern for women seeking abortions, with over 40% of abortions being performed on women below the federal poverty line. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term can lead to a decrease in her quality of life, as well as potential harm to her existing family and the child she is carrying.

The health and life of the mother are also critical factors in the abortion debate. In cases where the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's health, abortion can be a necessary and life-saving procedure. Former U.S. representative Joe Walsh's claim that there is no exception for the life of the mother is inaccurate, as conditions like ectopic pregnancies can be fatal if not addressed through abortion.

In conclusion, abortion should remain a legal choice for women, even if individuals may not personally condone it. The right to privacy, as established by the Supreme Court, should be respected, and women should have the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies without government interference. http://www.minnpost.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.thenation.com... http://www.womenscenter.com... http://think

Good luck to my opponent and may the best argument win. ______________ Resolution Definitions: Abortion -noun 1. a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. "Induced Abortion" b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) "Personal Reasons" - For the purpose of this debate, personal reasons will incorporate the following common factors found to influence the decision of abortion as described by the 1998 AGI meta-study. 1) Desire to delay or end childbearing 2) Concern over the interruption of work or education 3) Issues of financial or relationship stability 4) Perceived immaturity. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "Illegal" –adjective 1. forbidden by law or statute. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) ______________ Human Rights in the United States: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - United States Declaration of Independence It is clear from this statement that the United States was founded on the principle of a set of natural rights granted to all "men". We have come to realize that the term "men" does not specifically pertain to only those of the male gender, but to a broader definition of man. "Man" -noun 2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) However, we also understand that the concepts described in the Declaration were predicated on the theories of Social Contract. "By Jefferson's own admission, the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence were commonly expressed throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.[5] John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is probably the predominant source from which Jefferson drew inspiration.[6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org......) Under the Social Contract there are circumstances where a human being, guilty of committing a crime, can and must forfeit these natural rights. "Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. It is justified with laws punishing behavior that breaks the Social Contract because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968)." (http://en.wikipedia.org......) While we recognize the rights of the guilty must be revoked, there is no such circumstance for the innocent under this doctrine. An innocent human being, having done nothing to break the Social Contract, must therefore retain their natural rights in such a society. It is therefore illegal, and rightfully should be illegal, to revoke the rights of an innocent human being. Under these same ideas, we understand the right to self-defense in so much as it is an individual protecting its right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thus, a pregnancy which threatens the physical well-being (life) of a mother, must supersede the life of a fetus. It is also clear that instances such as rape do occur, in which the only self-defense from further trama can only be after the event in the form of an abortion. Because these fall within the realm of self-defense, they will not be relevant to this debate. It is however, wholly inappropriate and unreasonable to take the rights of a human being for personal reasons. In the same way that it is illegal for a person to kill a teacher for failing him from a class and impeding his education, it should be illegal for a person to have an induced abortion for personal reasons because they became pregnant. It is not as though you just "get" pregnant. There is a conscious decision to have sex with the knowledge that a new human life could be the result. In the same way, if a person makes the conscious decision not to study, they run the risk of failing a class. As you can see, in both instances the person brought the situation upon them self, and killing an innocent human being is never the appropriate response for an improper decision. It is considered illegal to kill an innocent human being in the United States, especially for personal reasons as they are defined in this debate. Therefore throughout this debate, I will show why this same set of laws ought to be extended to protecting fetuses from induced abortions for personal reasons. ______________ Defining a Human Being: Human Being -noun 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Species -noun 2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) ______________ The Human Fetus: "The first sperm that penetrates fully into the egg donates its genetic material (DNA). The egg then polarizes, repelling any additional sperm. The resulting combination is called a zygote. The term "conception" refers variably to either fertilization or to formation of the conceptus after uterine implantation, and this terminology is controversial. Like every cell in the body, the zygote contains all of the genetic information unique to an individual, or a complete genome. Half of the genetic information residing in the zygote's nucleus comes from the mother's egg nucleus, and the other half from the nucleus of a single sperm." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It is important to note that the human fetus contains a unique, individual set of genetic material (DNA) from both the mother and the father. ______________ Human Fetus is an Innocent Human Being: Given the above, it is clear that a Human Fetus, unquestionably of the species Homo Sapien and with an individualized set of DNA, must necessarily be considered a human being. A human fetus must also be considered innocent, as it has produced no behavior breaking the Social Contract and thus committed no crime. ______________ We can now get to the meat and potatoes of this argument, so to speak. I will make my case in syllogism form: 1. A fetus is a human being that is innocent 2. An Innocent human being reserves the natural rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness 3. It is illegal to revoke the natural rights of an innocent human being 4. Induced Abortions for personal reasons revoke all natural rights from a fetus 5. Thus, Induced Abortions for personal reasons ought to be illegal

Before I begin my arguments, I’d like to apologize for my delayed response. I’d also like to note that I’ve opted to devote this round to only arguments and not rebuttals, in favor of incorporating some questions I’d like to address in my rebuttals that I’d like my opponent to answer in his following round: Why should raped women be forced to carry around a baby, deal with the pains of pregnancy, and then be forced to financially support the child of a rapist who she does not love or want for twenty years of her life because she was raped and impregnated? Should women who have a high risk of death during birth be allowed to have an abortion? If the pregnancy put the life of the mother at stake, should she be forced to give birth? Should fetuses with a high risk of painful defects – such as HIV or Cerebral Palsy – be aborted? Should stem cell research – research that saves thousands of lives every year – be discontinued because they use human embryos? Finally, before I begin my arguments, I’d like to note that this debate is based on the legality of Abortion, not the morality. Therefore, my opponent cannot simply rely on moral arguments if I can demonstrate that it is necessary to legalize abortion. 1) The fetus is not the equivalent of a person. It is evident that there is some boundary between when a fetus is just a blob of cells and when a fetus actually acquires its personhood – it’s the same reason why we don’t regard freshly planted acorns as trees. It’s not enough for a being to have human cells and be conscious; otherwise, zombies would be considered persons. Because this debate is specific to abortions within the first trimester as defined in the first round, it is important to understand that what’s essentially being aborted is a clump of unconscious, undeveloped cells. Therefore, the destruction of the fetus has neither the same moral nor legal consequences as murder. 2) It’s better for women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy/reduces crime rates. The lifelong regret that my opponent describes during his second point is ironic – it’s almost as if he’s describing the lifelong regret that comes with teen pregnancies. In his arguments, my opponent continuously deflates the ramifications of childbirth and inflates the value of a cluster of cells – what needs to be stressed here is how much commitment it takes to raise a child. Raising a child is a tireless, full time commitment. A kid needs to be nurtured – he/she demands money, time, and attention. Now imagine that you were a teen girl who lived in the slums (since that is the demographic that is most likely to seek an abortion), and you became saddled with a baby because “you were young and lacked the life experience to understand what you were getting into”. The father leaves you and you’re left with a kid that requires you to drop out of school and work full time as a waitress in order to support him/her for twenty years. I firmly believe that it is better for women to terminate the pregnancy rather than forcing them into the example above. Not only does this harm the mother and essentially hands a death sentence to a teenage girl who made a minor mistake – it causes indescribable damage to the child as well. Imagine being raised in the slums by a mother who doesn’t love you, and regrets giving birth to you. This kind of childhood neglect and abuse is what creates monsters like Hitler and Stalin, as well as serial murders like Paul Bernardo and Charles Manson, all of whom have been neglected as a child. It is also why crime statistics have been proven to drop upon the legalization of abortion. 3) Abortion would exist anyway, with or without legalization. Even before the landmark Roe v. Wade, abortions were relatively commonplace. The only difference is that the abortions were performed in dirty closets with copper coathangers and unsanitary procedures rather than in the hospital, resulting in up to 100,000 deaths (of the mother as well as the baby) annually. This kind of desperation, which goes to show how many women would choose a potential life of vaginal scarring, infertility, and even death in order to avoid being saddled with a child is proof that even if abortion was made illegal, it would only serve to drive abortion underground to more dangerous conditions, similar to what happened with the prohibition of alcohol during the 1900s. 4) The rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. In most developed countries, there exists a constitution that promises its citizens liberty and the right to self ownership. With this in mind, the legalization of abortion should be considered unconstitutional. The fetus is the equivalent of a parasite that latches on to your body and feeds off of you for several months. You’re forced to carry it around, wherever you go. If a hobo came up to you and latched himself onto you, followed you around, and forced you to feed and shelter him as well as causing you morning sickness and childbirth pains, the government cannot charge you for kicking him out. This is because the government cannot force you to sacrifice your body and freedom to carry around a parasite even if removing it means its death; it’s a violation of your right to liberty! The mother’s (who the cluster of cells is completely dependent on) right to a choice supersedes the right of the fetus even if the fetus could be considered a human being. Which it isn’t. Conclusion: As I am running out of time, I will respond to my opponent’s points on medical complications in the next round, as well as provide a more detailed and factual case. I hand the stage back to my opponent.

1) "Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice." Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. "Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision." So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I"m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can"t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven"t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven"t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn"t be touched.

Well this threw me quite a bit. It's refreshing to see someone actually have an open mind regarding this topic, too often I see the usual 'its plain murder!' argument without consideration for anything else. I guess we don't really have much to debate here but for the sake of other people who may come across this post I suppose I'll try to get some of my points out. I agree that some people abuse abortion and turn it into a method of contraception and we should be trying to provide every alternative for young people especially to avoid this. But you can never, ever deny someone a choice especially when it affects their life and has no impact on anyone else but them. This goes against the premise of freedom which I'm not American but everyone knows that's what America was built upon. The freedom of the people to say what they want and to make the choices they want. Some common arguments people have for banning abortion are things like the methods used.. Okay that's perfectly fair, it's not exactly the most elegant way, true. But it's a whole lot better than it was 100 years ago, not even that long. And it will be a whole lot better in 100 years from now. In some places its required by law that the fetus receives anesthesia prior to the procedure. This is already a step towards better methods. But a big risk in banning abortion is then reversing that decision in the future. This can also have catastrophic results in other countries especially poverty stricken ones because the world looks to the United States and tries to emulate it. If the U.S brings this into law other countries will follow and this is not a good thing, we already have people in places like Africa as an example, pushing out baby after baby after baby with no way to care for it and provide any sort of quality life for it. This happens in Western countries too, people living in poverty are having kids they can't provide for and if we completely eliminate the choice of abortion this will be happening even more frequently and what do you suppose happens to these kids? Some turn to crime. Now, admittedly that's a very anecdotal scenario and I could of put it in better words but the point stands that you cannot completely eliminate the CHOICE. As far as putting up for adoption, that's not always a viable solution. If you are pregnant as a result of an accident which happens all too frequently and you are a single working woman you can't always afford to carry a pregnancy to 9 months, this means having to take time off or not being able to fully perform at your job what happens then? I think you get the idea. In the end, there are plenty of valid reasons why it should be a choice. It doesn't affect anyone but the mother and father. And we can go into the whole it affects the baby argument but no, it doesn't, the fetus isn't conscious. I guess I'll end it there since we don't have much to debate here. I appreciate your honesty that something was able to change your opinion on this topic and I hope more people can at least see other sides to this rather than just 'its murder!' Have a good one!

I am not for banning abortion, but I will argue for banning abortion for this debate. 1. The right to life is more important than any other right. The right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy. The right for a person to at least have a chance at life overrides a womans right to bodily autonomy. The life that is aborted wil not ever get another chance in this world so he/she must be given the one chance they have. Who knows who that unbron baby will become? Will they be a scientist, doctor or lawayer? Even if they get a less high profile job their life will still have value, like all lives. If a woman is forced to carry a aby to term she will loose about 9 months of bodily autonomy but if she aborts the fetus the fetus will loose his/her entire life. 9 months of pregnancy is worth it if it means a child will live and not die. Would you tell Gianna Jessen, an abortion surivir that she should have been aborted because it was what her mom wanted? Would you tell Melissa Ohden, another abortion survivor that she should have been aborted? https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Fetuses are human lives and it should be illegal to kill a human life. We have have our own unique set of DNA once we are concieved. By 18 days after conception the babies heart is beating The eyes, nose, mouth and ears are forming. There are small dents on the sides of his head where is ears will form. His intentines are developing and the bud of tissue that will later become his lungs are devloping. By 5 weeks the babies hands and feet emege from the stubs that will become his arms amd legs. Both hemispeeres of his brain are growng and his liver is producing red blood cells. He has an appendix and a pancreas. By week 6 his hads and feet develop webbed fingers and toes. Primitive athways between nerve clles in his brain are forming. By week 7 the babies heart has developed into four chambers. The baby has his extermnal sex orgins. His eyes are fully formed. By week 8 the baby becomes a fetus. He kicks and swallows a lot. His kidneys, intestines, brain and liver are functioning. The webbing between his fingers and toes disappear and tiny nails come about. He can bend his limbs. By week 9 tiny tooth buds form and his bones harden. By 10 weeks the baby develops reflexes, so if you touch your belly he'll squirn away!. He curls his fingers and toes and clenches his muscles. His face becomes human looking with his eyes in place. By week 11 he has fingerprints. By 12 weeks he can squint, frownd, graspe, grimace and suck his thumb. He also produces urine, hair and bile. By week 13 he can move his joints. He can also sense light and is forming taste buds. By week 14 weeks he is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By week 15 his skelton begans changing form soft cartilage to bone and his sweat glands are developing. By 16 weeks his ears are in the final position and he forms myelin around his nerves. By 17 weeks his brain develops special areas for smell, taste, hearing and vision. His arms and legs are the right proprtions and he can recognize his moms voice. By 18 weeks be begans to defecate. By 20 weeks his lips, eye brows and eye lida re more distinct. By 21 weeks he has a good sense of movement and can feel his mom move. He can hear whats going on otside of the womb and blood vessles in hs lungs develop. By 21 weeks he can live outside the womb. This is when Amilia Tylor was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida and when James Elgin Gill was born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada By 24 weeks he can hear voices other than his moms. He begins inhaling and exhaling small amounts of amniotic fluid. These are not clumps of cells. These are people. Just because they are dependent on another persons body doesn't mean that its ok to kill them. 3. Abortion involves violence towards an innocent baby. Here are the descriptions of the various procedure used to kill the babies. Vacuum aspiration abortion is done between 3 and 12 weeks. During a vacuum aspiraiton abortion procedure a cannula is inserted into the uterus and attached with tubing to the pump. The pump creates a vacuum which sucks out the baby. During a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure the cervix is enlarged and a cannula is put through it and attached to a vacuum. The vacuum sucks the baby out and than forceps are used to remove remaining baby parts. Than a curette (a metal rod with a hook on one end and a handle on the other) is used to scrape out the rest of the baby. This is done between 13-24 weeks. Here is a GRAPHIC documentary, narrated by the late Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist tuned pro life activist. It shows an abortion trough an ultra sound. Embryos and fetuses are humans and like other humans they have a right to life, and that right to life overrides ones right to bodily autonomy. They should not be dismembered with vacuums, forceps or curettes and should be given the chance to live outside the womb. Thanks.

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.

You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone

Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope. My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof. My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows: 1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...) 2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...) These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.

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.

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


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should be a legal right for women to choose, as it allows individuals to make decisions about their own bodies and futures. The argument that denying women the right to choose will lead to suffering is flawed, as the alternative is forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, which can result in physical and emotional harm to both the mother and child. Additionally, adoption is often presented as an alternative, but it is not always a viable option for every woman or every child.

Furthermore, making abortion illegal does not eliminate the practice, but rather drives it underground to unsafe and often illegal clinics, putting women's lives at risk. This is not a hypothetical concern, as history has shown that illegal abortions result in higher rates of maternal mortality and injury.

Lastly, the argument that fetuses do not feel pain until a certain point in gestation is not a valid justification for denying women the right to choose. Even if this were true, which is a matter of scientific debate, it does not change the fact that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body and future.

In conclusion, the right to choose abortion is a fundamental aspect of women's autonomy and reproductive rights, and should be protected by law. The arguments against abortion often rely on faulty logic and ignore the real-world consequences of denying women this right.

1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc. According to rainn.org, there are 237,868 victims of sexual assault each year, and 44% of them are under the age of eighteen. Imagine being 12 years old and pregnant due to a rape. First and foremost, can your body even handle a pregnancy at that age? According to Medline Plus, the younger a mother is below age 20, the greater the risk of her infant dying during the first year of life and infants born to teens are 2 - 6 times more likely to have low birth weight than those born to mothers age 20 or older. Even if a teen could later put the baby up for adoption, the baby would have already been exposed to dangerous conditions. Also, going back to being a pregnant 12 year old, how would that pregnancy affect your future? According to Medline Plus, teen mothers are about 2 years behind their age group in completing their education and women who have a baby during their teen years are more likely to live in poverty. There are woman out there who are put in situations such as rape, incest, or abuse and having a baby can disrupt their whole lives. http://www.rainn.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov...2. It is not the job of the government to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Whatever circumstance a women is in, the government has no way of knowing. Even if abortion was made against the law unless subject to rape, incest, etc, how can the government enforce that rule? If a woman really wanted to get an abortion, she can easily lie to get it. Also, this country prides itself on the freedom of choice, so why is the choice of women being taken away? Whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, it is her decision and it will affect her life. Abortion is no easy task, it is very emotional and personal to the woman and her family. If a woman is in a situation where she has to consider having an abortion, she needs to figure that out by herself or with her close family. The government should not be able to weigh in on a decision that personal. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment. Imagine that you are a woman in an abusive relationship. You have no freedom or choice in your household and is physically and mentally abused often. What if you had gotten pregnant? Do you think you live in an environment ideal for raising a child? If my opponent had what he wanted, abortion would be illegal, and for this particular woman, adoption is not an option. Does this child deserve to grow up in such a dangerous environment? Do you think his/her life will be a good one? If a woman is in a situation that she knows is not good for a child, isn’t it her responsibility to terminate the pregnancy? Shouldn’t she at least have the choice to terminate the pregnancy? Though it is hard to picture this, there are women out there in these types of circumstances and worse. My opponent could argue the women could always find help, but does he know how dire her situation is? Does he have any way of proving that every single woman out there has a clear path to safety? According to the Center for Disease Control, at least 4 to 8 percent of pregnant women—that's over 300,000 per year—report suffering abuse during pregnancy. Also, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women between 15 and 44 and is estimated to be responsible for 20 to 25 percent of all hospital emergency room visits by women. 300,000 women a year are abused while pregnant, and on top of this, my opponent believes they shouldn't have the choice to end the pregnancy? http://www.womensweb.ca... In conclusion, I believe abortion should be legal because some women have certain circumstances, it is not the responsibility of the government, and the baby could be put in a bad situation. When a baby is born, it is completely at the mercy of its caregivers. A child is a living thing, a life, and the parents must take the initiative to protect it, at whatever cost.

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

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 argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views. Contention 1: Life is not sacred Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception Contention 3: A fetus is not a person I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!

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.

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

I am arguing that abortion before the development of the nervous system is finished should be legal in all 50 states. For the first clarify that you understand your position. Then there will be 3 rounds to argue or give rebuttals as you see fit. If you are using any specific fact from any source cite the source at some point.

I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.

Should Women have rights? I believe women should have rights. I will let you argue your argument first.

RebuttalLateterm-abortion should not be legal since their are better alternatives that don't waste life, such as adoption, abstinence, birth control, condoms, the day after pill, and many other controceptives. When there is this many ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place and when there is this many alternatives to killing, why should killing another living breathing unborn baby be a choice?There are many other controceptives to choose from, and are cheap. However, in the case that contoceptives do not work, the mother does not have to keep the baby as long as 22 weeks when it can feel, when it can think, when the only thing that is seperating it from being considered a full person is it's location. If a mother did not want the baby she would have used better crotroceptives such as Praneem [1], which is way more effective then the average birth control pills and condoms, and all these can be used at once to effectivelly prevent pregnancy. Like I have already stated, since the woman was given so many alternatives and also kept the baby for 22 weeks. The women should think about that before having unprotected sex. Every action that we all make have consequences, and pregnancy is the consequence for unprotected sex. The fetus should not be the one that pays the price for his so-called mother's mistake.It is not my moral values that decide on whether a baby has the right to life or not, it is the government's. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two murders the woman's life and the baby's life. [2] If the baby has no right to life then why is there punishments against killing them? Because the baby does have rights. Therefore, if it is against the law to kill the unborn and not be the mother, then it should be illegal for the mother to do this also.Defense1) There is two things wrong with this. The first is that we live in a democracy, so if the majority of people do not like late-term abortion (which they agree with me), then it should stay illegal. Also, How does the fact that the mother practically invites the baby into her womb, and then waiting 22 weeks in which she is fully pregnant, then knowing that she could very easily put the baby up for adoption but would rather kill it justify giving a women to have her baby's brains sucked out? It doesn't, women already have plenty of choices, that will allow her and the baby to live their lives to the fullest.2) In the case that this is true and her family wont accept her, this does not make late-term abortion just. the damage would have already been done, and going through with the pregnancy and puting the baby up for adoption would be a better solution then killing the baby and still having a family that wont accept her. The fact is that it is hurting the baby, therefore shouldn't be legal.3) This statement is by your own opinion.The state is our governemnent. They make laws that protect us and society, this includes protection from ourselves. It is possible if members of society would stop killing eachother, this can be applied to late-term abortion since obviously the baby is being killed. Therefore, a great way to stop the corosion of our society is to make late-term abortion stay illegal.This is not logical to compare a underdeveloped unborn baby, who did not choose to be in the woman's body, to a grown person who is capable of rashional thought who chooses to break into someone elses home.The fetus will grow up and perform a task that society requires of it. The woman would be performing one of her tasks to society by baring children. Also, keeping late term abortion illegal is preserving the rights of the fetus.Final ConclusionLate-term abortion does not benefit society at all, but takes away valuable future people to carry on society. It is also has a very barbaric procedure in which it is carried out, and women have plenty of rights and alternatives late-term abortion should remain illegal.Vote con![1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2]http://civilliberty.about.com...