Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Regarding abortion, my stance is strongly against it. I maintain that abortion should be prohibited, given that taking a life is considered illegal.

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

Well 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.

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...

Abortion should not be abolished. My first stance is that Americans have constitutional freedom, and the freedom to make a choice on whether to keep an (unborn) child or not is up to the woman. Do we have other forms of birth control? Yes. I could list them for you right now but that would waste valuable time. What we also have here is people who are either not ready or too poor to support a child. Would you like to be unwanted? Dirt poor? Malnourished? I sure wouldn't want to be, and I'm lucky not to. But, if abortion is abolished in America, we will have kids who grow up in the said unfortunate ways. Thank you for reading my argument.

According to mayoclinic.com a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being, making an abortion after four weeks murder, and murder is illegal, yes? Why should a fetus with a heartbeat be any different? A woman has many ways to protect against pregnancy (under normal circumstances) failure to protect against unwanted pregnancy is NOT reason enough to warrent killing a human being.

I saw your comment on "Should Abortion Be Legal?" and I wish to change your mind.

Many think that abortion should be illegal in the United States. As of right now it is legal in the country, but certain states have regulated laws that put limits on the times and periods that women can get an abortion. Only 39 states require an abortion be done by a licensed physician (Georgia being one of them). 42 states prohibit abortions after a certain amount of time of the pregnancy has passed. 17 states require that in order for a woman to get an abortion, she first has to go through counseling. These laws and regulations are not full-proof, but they do help to make it as moral and ethical as possible. Women should be allowed to get an abortion if they feel the need, but not after a certain amount of time has passed in the pregnancy. A woman's body is her own and she should be able to make the choice she wants to make with it. http://www.guttmacher.org...

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.

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

Here is my counter argument 1. Women have sex knowing that there is a risk of getting pregnant. If they don't want to have a child, then they should not have sex. -Refer to my point 19 (19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse.) -Refer to my point 22 (Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby?) -Refer to point 24 (Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive.) -It is the right of every woman to make choice as regards their bodies & when they want to have children. What of women's rights -Shall we then blame women for being biological the sex that has to bear children. -It is mainly because of man who do not want to take responsibility for the actions that many woman are forced to have abortions -A child is the product of sex between two people so you mean to say you are okay with man who go about impregnating woman and not taking responsibility 2. If the fetus is beyond 23 weeks, it can feel pain. -If thats the case then lets make abortion legal for pregnancies less than 23 weeks, which i think is the law. So we agree abortion should be legal. The question is upto how many weeks should abortion be considered legal 3. Abortions cause phycological damage -I assume you meant "physiological damage" -If abortion is done by qualified medical practitioners following the medical guidelines, research actually shows that there is a greater chance of dying from pregnancy than from dying from an abortion -the problem is the back-door abortion centers, these are mostly caused by making abortion illegal or too costly for the poor to access. 3. On teenage pregnancies. Here are 5 facts (a) Teenagers are having more sex than before (b) Teenagers are having more unprotected sex than protected sex (c) As a result teenagers are having more teenage pregnancies (d) As a result teenagers are having more children than before (e) As a result teenagers are having more abortions than before -So in addition to giving teenagers more sex education, we also need to provide them with legal & safe ways to have abortions as opposed to unsafe & illegal abortions. -If we make abortions illegal, teenagers will have more children -If we have abortions legal they will have less children -This affects their prospects in life for being financially free of dependance and being financially secluded Fewer rounds for debate ensures that each person makes a solid case. The next round is the last one so please provide all your rebuttals


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should be a legal choice for women.

1. Abortion is a critical aspect of women's rights, allowing them to make decisions about their reproductive health based on their age, financial stability, and relationship status. It is not the role of the government to dictate these choices. 2. Raising a child requires significant emotional, social, and financial commitment. If a person is not ready for parenthood, forcing them to carry a pregnancy to term can lead to an unhealthy and unstable environment for the child. 3. The moral arguments against abortion are subjective and should not be used to create laws. Women who believe in the right to abortion should have access to safe procedures, while those who oppose it should have the choice to abstain. 4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically recognized as a person or human being, so abortion cannot be equated to murder. 5. A fetus is not self-aware or conscious, and prohibiting abortions does not eliminate them; it only forces women to seek unsafe, illegal alternatives. 6. Abortion prevents unwanted pregnancies and child neglect, as mothers who are not ready to have children should not be forced into parenthood. 7. Making abortion illegal is a class issue, as the wealthy can travel to countries where it is legal, while the poor are left with dangerous options. 8. Compulsory pregnancy contradicts the principles of freedom and autonomy. 9. Making abortion illegal increases the risk of teenage pregnancy, which often leads to illegal and unsafe abortions, poverty, and dependency. 10. The right to choose abortion is fundamental to women's rights and autonomy. 11. Personhood begins at birth, not conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a human life. 12. Legal abortions reduce the risk of injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal procedures. 13. The anti-abortion stance is often based on religious beliefs, which should not influence the separation of church and state. 14. Modern abortion procedures are safe, with a lower risk of maternal death compared to childbirth. 15. Access to abortion is necessary due to the limited availability of contraceptives, which require a doctor's prescription. 16. Abortion allows couples to choose not to bring babies with severe medical conditions to full term. 17. Financial instability is a common reason for choosing abortion. 18. Motherhood should never be a punishment for sexual activity. 19. Unwanted pregnancies can lead to

My stance is that abortion should not be made illegal. The first argument is the acceptance.

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

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.

In the majority of the western world abortion is considered a suitable operation for women who are not able or do not want to bear children. In these countries many people agree with abortion, and, as you can see in the opinion polls of this website more than half of the users also approve of abortion. I am here to argue for the subject of abortion because I also believe that it is a suitable method for unfortunate women who do not and do not deserve want a pregnancy.

Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod

Hello buildingapologetics, and thank you for opening up the possibility of debate!Seeing as I have written a plethora of material related to the debate on abortion, I will use some of said material for my round 1 argument.1. Historical contextAbortion is nearly as old as civilization is. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, although earlier abortion was primarily practiced via extensive physical labor. Assuming we are talking about legality in The United States, the historical context here is a bit different considering how young the country is. In America, abortion was legal in the country's infancy but was illegalized, one of the reasons was due to a lack of desire to have the population dominated by the children of immigrants, the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent “untrained” practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees. The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor’s judgment, to save the woman’s life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a “physicians-only” practice. As you and I are aware the ruling on abortion being illegal was overturned in 1973 with Roe V. Wade and is now constitutionally justified in the united states, so long as it's performed by a trained medical practitioner.2. Consequences of illegal abortionThe consequences for making abortion legal are only bad to America's citizens and result in more death than legal abortion. Before roe v wade it's estimated that 1.2 million women would seek out abortions per year, and be forced to get illegal, or "back-alley" abortions, which resulted in many thousands of deaths of women and their fetuses.3. Human rightsYou would call it a human right to force the woman to have an unwanted child, I would call that oppression. By taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she must have a child regardless of the circumstance, you effectively oppress the woman by giving her fewer rights than the fetus that is using her organs to sustain itself. There are laws put in place that say that no one can use your organs or blood, regardless if you are dead or living, and regardless of how many people it would benefit or even save. Giving a fetus unlimited rights to use a woman's organs without her consent effectively gives a dead person more rights than a pregnant mother, and that isn't (in my opinion) how we should treat it.4. Faults with contraceptionA common argument presented within the pro-life community is "Why don't you just use a form of contraception?" and the answer is quite simple. Contraception fails and fails a lot more than most people would think.

1. What are the burdens? The resolution states that abortion shouldn’t be legal in any situation. Pro’s burden, therefore, is to show that abortion should be legally impermissible. My burden is to show that, in at least one situation, abortion should be permissible. 2. Life of the motherI believe that abortion ought to be legal in cases where there is a threat to the mother’s life when not aborting. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians explains, “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.” [1] The cases where abortion is necessary include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia [2].Pro might argue that there are alternatives in such cases, and that medical technology has sufficiently progressed to prevent necessity of an abortion. First, those are wrong misconceptions, and abortions are actually often necessary. Second, even if that were the case, when there is a better chance at the life of the mother being saved from an abortion, it ought to be done. Why value the mother’s life over the life of the fetus? First, the fetus lacks any sentience or ability to experience sensation. Morality hinges on fulfilling interests, and the fetus does not have an interest to avoid death. Second, if the child is born without a mother, there might be multiple psychological difficulties faced by the child -- which are definitely harmful. 3. LibertyPeople have the liberty to do whatever they want -- without the state controlling them -- unless this liberty causes actual harm to non-consensual others [3]. The reason to support this is that the government lacks any legitimacy if it legislates against self-regarding acts. The purpose of government is to prevent harm from others, else people don’t recognize the legitimacy of the state. Abortion doesn’t actually “harm” anyone, because the fetus is unable to feel or perceive anything [4, 5]. Lacking any interest, the fetus does not experience any harm from an abortion, so nobody who doesn’t consent to the abortion is harmed. As such, the right to have an abortion is a part of this liberty. 4. ConclusionFirst, I have shown that abortion should be permitted in cases where the mother’s life depends on it, since the state ought to value the mother’s life over the fetus’s life. Second, I have shown that the right to have an abortion is an essential part of liberty since it causes no harm to the interests of a non-consensual other. For those two reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.acog.org...[2] http://www.usatoday.com...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] https://www.newscientist.com...[5] https://rewire.news...

I believe that abortion should become illegal, and that's the case I will be supporting here. I have basically two main reasons for believing abortion should generally be illegal (leaving an exception in case the mother's life is in immediate jeopardy, and the child could not be delivered and be saved). Contention OneWe are the same entity in the womb as we are outside the womb. Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [2]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [3]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. " [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. Essentially, you didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. Since we are the same entity in the womb as outside, if a morally justifiable reason is required to kill someone outside the womb, an equally morally justifiable reason is needed to kill someone inside the womb. Since killing someone outside the womb without moral justification (e. g. self-defense and just war are morally justifiable reasons) is illegal, then killing someone without moral justification inside the womb should also be illegal. Contention TwoRoe v. Wade is the single worst piece of legislation ever passed. The Supreme Court had no justification for passing it. However, rather than defending that contention here, I will wait until my rebuttal round (since most of what I have to say on this matter directly conflicts with Pro's first contention). I look forward to our next round. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [4] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20.

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

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.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should remain a legal choice for women to make. I hold the view that a woman's decision to have an abortion is a personal one, and it should be legally protected to guarantee that it is carried out under regulated conditions.

I stand on the position that:1. Women should have choice on whether to abort or notand2. Abortions should be available to women as needed

Abortion is a sensitive topic for billions of people around the world and to pose an argument in support of it is to bring upon you the scorn and disapproval of many. The issue of abortion is especially sensitive among those whose religion speaks against it, and why not? let us not shirk from the facts, abortion is murder of sorts, the killing of an unborn child, the extinguishing of a perhaps bright and promising future with a few simple drugs. A life put out as quickly and as painfully as blowing out a candle. Abortion can in no ways possible be argued to be a pleasant and enjoyable experience. What the religions say is clear cut, abortion is against god/gods/great ancestors will, and i cannot argue against this, and nor do I want to, nor is it possible for me too. And it is also very true that many people who do not follow a faith also are strongly against abortion, and I would just like to point out that neither do I find It a pleasing nor happy concept that abortion is legal, BUT I do strongly, wholeheartedly understand that it is a completely necessary process, just as was world war I and II, horrific, dreadful, but necessary to protect the world as we know it. And please excuse my perhaps crude comparison but that is exactly the reason why abortion should and will remain legal, it is a process of protecting the planet, because what is the planets most important concern? Not global warming, but over-population. The world is vastly over populated. Global warming, disease, war, is all derived from overpopulation. Contraception, education, and abortion are all methods of curbing the disastrous increase of human population. Again forgive my terrible analogy but we humans are like an infestation of rats on this beautiful planet, except in our case there is no exterminator. Nobody likes being told this and even less will accept it, but stop bloody ignoring it, because it's the truth. The fact that this planet has continued to sustain us humans as long as we have existed in our diabolical number, is a miracle in itself, far greater, than Moses splitting the red sea, or Jesus turning bread to flesh and water to wine. Agreed abortion is but one of the ways to curb the overpopulation of the planet, but it is still a way, a way that that would help millions of impoverished women to ease the strain on themselves and their families, already beset by poverty and in many cases starvation. By having a further child they are putting further strain on their family, and in many cases the new born child will not live to adulthood. Many charities these days are forever preaching to us more privileged ( the fact that whoever reads this has access to a computer, internet cafe or not, makes us privileged) that we must fight against children in poverty and give them a chance to survive and grow up and lead a better life. I am all for this, I have donated many times to children charities and recognise it as a heroic and worthwhile cause. But is it not fair to say that so many more children could benefit far more if, (dare I say it) there were less of them? Hard as it may seem to accept, this is a case where the unborn, unconscious child, has to be murdered so to help the survival of his born conscious living breathing siblings, who would otherwise would be murdered through war, starvation, and disease. And to whomever thinks that the birth of more siblings would not make a difference, to the rest of their families lives, I say, wake up. Simple abortion is a cruel and cold way of helping this planet, but it is a way, we must not forget that while we sit comfortably at our warm homes drinking cold beer while typing away on our laptops (me anyway) That millions people women, men and children could benefit from abortion. And I know the question all you readers are asking right now, is even though it is legal, why are these people still suffering? The answer is two reasons. The first understandably is the mothers reluctance to kill her own child, the second is religion, both of which unfortunately I cannot argue against for I am neither a mother nor religious. But still does not undermine my view the potential that abortion could have to these millions of families. Let us not think about our own needs, our own beliefs, or what we would want for ourselves and our children. But let us think what would help others instead.

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.

Con presented his/her position in absolute terms: Abortion should be illegal. As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason. Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction. Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother. [Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here. ] If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust. Potential Death of the Mother: In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998. . http://www.amnesty.org... The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure". . http://www.arhp.org... Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic. Rebuttal of Con arguments: Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding. In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them. In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant. Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod

Defense "She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption." I never said she shouldn't have the choice of adoption or keeping the baby, my argument is that late term abortion should also be an option. "She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy." Contraceptives don't always work. You can use birth control pills and condoms, and still get pregnant. "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." No, she will not be hurt by delivering the baby. But why should she be forced to? The fetus's property rights should not be placed above those of the mother, especially because it is using the mother's resources. "A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life." If we're going to involve the right to life, then it's reasonable to expect that the same rights are conferred to the mother. She has the right to do what she wishes with her life, and her body. Your sense of what is moral or right shouldn't have anything to do with it, because that's your life. Rebuttal 1. "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" You are basing this analogy on your morals. Regardless of how many people agree with them, it does not justify restricting the liberties of those who do not. 2. "better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?'" Maybe it does hurt her in a horrible fashion. You can't quantify such subjective things as hurt and pain, she may be extremely upset because she's pregnant and her family refuses to accept her, or something. Unless you can reliably put yourself in her head and interpret her experiences exactly as she does, you are not qualified to make the statement that it does not hurt her, and you are also unable to make laws based on such statements. "The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks." I have already mentioned circumstances in which the mother would reasonably be unable to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, which you have not refuted. Late term abortions don't necessarily happen simply because the mother wants to have a late term abortion. "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." It does not have intrinsic value, there are very few things a baby can do, and none of them particularly useful. Fetuses can't do anything. If anything, it has intrinsic potential, and that potential may never be realized even if it were to live. You advocate restricting a woman's rights based on a possibility. 3. "The woman is a valuable member to society," Her first priority and responsibility is herself an her own well-being. She is an individual first, and a member of society second. "and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly." That doesn't follow from the earlier part of the statement. What is it about that woman being "a valuable member to society" that makes it the state's responsibility to ensure the perfect function of society? Also, you have not demonstrated that a perfectly-functioning society is possible, that it is the state's responsibility, or that it cannot involve any late term abortions. This is really just an assertion. "A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion." The fetus is not innocent; it is in someone else's body using their resources. If I were to break into your house and steal your food, you would understandably want me out. You would also be justified in using force to accomplish that. The same principle applies in abortions. The fetus also fails to fit the description of a valuable member of society, in that it contributes nothing. Rather, it is the woman who contributes to society. As she is the one contributing to society, it would make sense that her rights should be the ones protected by society.

By abortion keeping abortion legalized, we are losing millions of innocent lives on a yearly basis. If you are opposed to keeping guns legal in the United States; 57,000,000+ abortions have occured since 1973. Since 1973, only 1.6 million deaths as a result of gunfire. (I use the word "only" to contrast that number from the number of abortions, not to discredit the significant amount). So answer me this; what logical reasons can you give me for why abortion should remain legal?

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

As a conservative, I do believe that abortion should be limited and safer, But illegal is far too extreme. If the government were to make abortion illegal, Women would be forced to bear the child. Around 190, 000 children are born from women aged 14-19, And to say that they have no right to get rid of the child would violate the many years of achieving the state of women's rights we have today. Women have the right to abortion. Although killing a baby is considered the cruelest act by society, You wouldn't be killing a child by getting an abortion. Life isn't made overnight, It is made through the span of nine months and those nine months are the defining months for a baby. Many Religions believe in the practice of abstinence and are strictly against abortion. But that is not the belief system on which our society is based on. People have sex in high school and in college without protection because people are generally irresponsible. The baby would be a mistake and the student would have to leave school and would lose any opportunity for a better career. Not only would it ruin the women's lives, But it would also significantly impact the baby's life. It is probable that the child would be sent away or there would be no father of the child to take care of it. The young women would also have no money for the future of the child who would overall live a miserable life. There is also the case where the child has deformities and would, Therefore, Live a miserable life of a lot of pain. No human being deserves a life of pain. People deserve to experience the good moments and be able to go outside and have fun. But if abortion were illegal, Children who live with deformities in hospitals or stuck at home will live miserable lives. Their brain would be underdeveloped due to the living conditions and would die anyway due to other health related problems. No child deserves to live a life like that and no unprepared mother deserves to be affected by the consequences of one action

Hello, thank you for accepting. Hopefully, this will be a fun debate, I am working on my debating skills. "Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case." I forgot to add something in my first post. Rape should be an exception. Otherwise, abortion should be illegal. Because rape is already illegal, I forgot to add the exception. There are many cases these days in which women get pregnant without getting raped, and they still want abortion. This is unfair, it is the woman's fault and she is killing the baby. "There's no basis for her argument." For your information, I am a male person. With that said, I will wait for my opponent to argue and I will build off of my opponent's arguments.

Women should have the right to terminate their pregnancy regardless of how far along they are in their pregnancy. Rights are not dictated by whether or not a person is pregnant. And they certainly are not revocable simply because a person is in a particular trimester. Rights are lifelong and inalienable without due process. And being pregnant is not a crime - you do not lose any of your rights just because you are with child. My opponent makes the claim that sometimes an infants rights should be prioritized. However, under the law ALL persons shall have equal rights. Infants should NOT be afforded special rights over another person simply because they are infants. To give them priority would be in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 and legally binding to all countries of the United Nations. Next, my opponent says that the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. This is both demonstrably false and also irrelevant to an infants rights taking priority over the mothers. The CDC estimates that 49% of pregnancies are unintended. And merely being pregnant does not mean that you are "assuming risk." A woman does not wave her rights merely because she is pregnant nor does she enter into a contractual arrangement to continue being pregnant. A woman has full rights over the use of her own body at all times. Another person does not have ANY rights over the use of her body at any time. The fetus has the right to life. But it does not have the right to life by violating another persons rights. If a pregnancy is terminated after 20-22 weeks it is not an abortion. Its a premature birth. And at that time the care and well being of the child is transferred to the state. The state cannot force you to look after the well being of the child after birth . . . nor can the state do so before birth. In closing, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we as a society do recognize infants have person hood. What we don't recognize is that one persons rights should be prioritized over another persons rights.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Abortion should be legally recognized and widely accepted. There are numerous positive outcomes that can stem from abortion, and it has the potential to prevent a multitude of socio-economic issues. I hold the belief that, in general, the children who are considered for abortion would likely become burdens on society. The global population is rapidly increasing, and I would prefer a world populated by wanted children rather than unwanted individuals who could become societal drains.

Hello to my opponent. I would like to set some ground rules and regulations for this debat, then explain my stance. I DO NOT want this to be a debat about the MORALITY of abortion, but rather, whether it should be legal in the US. I am fine with morality used as an argument, but not as a debate topoc. Beyond that, sources are not the primarily most important thing, but should be used, nevertheless, and also NO BASHING (ie you are pro-choice, you moraless b@$!ard!). This round is for acceptance of the debate. Definitions pro-choice: the mindset that a woman has the right to abortion. This does not mean a pro-choicer thinks abortion is moral, just that a woman has the right to one. pro-life: The mindset that abortion should be illegal. abortion: The act of aborting a baby VOLUNTARILY. Not a miscarriage. Thank you

I think elective abortion is a right to women (I am a man), as women have the right to their own bodies. If they want to end a pregnancy for ANY reason, they should have the option to do so. Whether you believe it is moral or not, it should be legal and available for all pregnant women. It's just like gay marriage, a lot of people don't like it, but marriage equality should be legal as love is a fundamental right for all people. Getting back to abortion, women should have the option to abort their child. Period. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, it makes sense to be able to abort the baby so you don't have to go through the pregnancy at all. So now I'll address the ethics aspect of abortion. Yes, it can be considered murder, but at the same time, it is not a developed human being and therefore does not share the same rights as one. You can even say that the yet-to-be-born baby is not alive, as it would not be able to live without being in its mother's womb, and an abortion will not be performed if the baby is past a certain stage of development. With this fact, it is obvious that abortion doctors and clinics will not perform one on a formed baby, and the baby is not fully alive until birth, and does not have the full rights of a human being extended to it until birth as well. I am interested to see how you respond to my women's rights thoughts.

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

It is my belief that it is a mothers natural inherited right to choose rather or not to terminate a pregnancy.

1. What are the burdens? The resolution states that abortion shouldn’t be legal in any situation. Pro’s burden, therefore, is to show that abortion should be legally impermissible. My burden is to show that, in at least one situation, abortion should be permissible. 2. Life of the motherI believe that abortion ought to be legal in cases where there is a threat to the mother’s life when not aborting. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians explains, “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.” [1] The cases where abortion is necessary include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia [2].Pro might argue that there are alternatives in such cases, and that medical technology has sufficiently progressed to prevent necessity of an abortion. First, those are wrong misconceptions, and abortions are actually often necessary. Second, even if that were the case, when there is a better chance at the life of the mother being saved from an abortion, it ought to be done. Why value the mother’s life over the life of the fetus? First, the fetus lacks any sentience or ability to experience sensation. Morality hinges on fulfilling interests, and the fetus does not have an interest to avoid death. Second, if the child is born without a mother, there might be multiple psychological difficulties faced by the child -- which are definitely harmful. 3. LibertyPeople have the liberty to do whatever they want -- without the state controlling them -- unless this liberty causes actual harm to non-consensual others [3]. The reason to support this is that the government lacks any legitimacy if it legislates against self-regarding acts. The purpose of government is to prevent harm from others, else people don’t recognize the legitimacy of the state. Abortion doesn’t actually “harm” anyone, because the fetus is unable to feel or perceive anything [4, 5]. Lacking any interest, the fetus does not experience any harm from an abortion, so nobody who doesn’t consent to the abortion is harmed. As such, the right to have an abortion is a part of this liberty. 4. ConclusionFirst, I have shown that abortion should be permitted in cases where the mother’s life depends on it, since the state ought to value the mother’s life over the fetus’s life. Second, I have shown that the right to have an abortion is an essential part of liberty since it causes no harm to the interests of a non-consensual other. For those two reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.acog.org...[2] http://www.usatoday.com...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] https://www.newscientist.com...[5] https://rewire.news...

1. Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. 2. Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs. 3. The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion 4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. 5. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead. 6. Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion. 7. Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time. 8. Making abortion illegal is also a class struggle since the rich can always go to other places where it is legal & have an abortion whilst the poor cannot do this, but have to resort to unsafe abortions which can lead to their death. 9. Making abortion illegal is more or less compulsory pregnancy which contradicts the quest & fight for freedom. 10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency. 11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right" 12. Personhood begins at birth, not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (fetus), not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. 13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. 14. The anti-abortion position is usually based on religious beliefs and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law. 15. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman"s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000, whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. 16. Access to abortion is necessary because contraceptives are not always readily available. Women need a doctor's prescription to obtain many birth control methods, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, and the diaphragm. 17. Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to bring babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions to full term. 18. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse. 20. A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. Having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. 21. Abortion reduces crime. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies, and since unwanted babies are often raised in poverty, their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood are increased. 22. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby? 23. We get right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness when we are born. he fetus does not have these rights until it is born. So abortion is not murder & abortion does not go against the rights of a fetus since it does not have any until born. 24. Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive. 25. If someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal 26. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 27. Being a mother is just one option for women.* Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 28. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. Sources 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://abortion.procon.org... 3. http://www.topix.com...

My name is Roger Robbins, I am 15 years old, I am a liberal Democrat living in the U. S. A. . I have a 4.2 GPA, I am a Junior in high school, I am an adolescent volunteer coordinator for a convalescent hospital, and I have a minimum wage job that helps me save for college. I ask that my opponent uses the first round as a personal introduction for them self, and gives a very general/direct statement that summarizes their opinion on abortion. The following debate should be structured using three different questions, where each should be answered in their designated round: Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U. S. A. ? Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Round 4: Is abortion necessary? These questions do not have to be the entire basis for your argument, but they should at least be acknowledged to help keep structure within our discussion. As for my opening statement I want to be clear that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Abortion should remain legal in all states because women are entitled to make their own decisions, especially regarding their health. Revoking a woman of her ability to do what she wishes with her body is a violation of her constitutional rights, and in some cases disrespectful. Making a woman give birth to a child she does not want, is making her endure pain for an act that she may or may not have had control over. Forcefully making a woman's life change because you do not agree with her beliefs is not your business nor your responsibility. I do not believe that women should use abortion as birth control, however I more strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for me to force my beliefs upon another person, especially to the extent of changing their life. It is a woman's life, a woman's child, a woman's body, a woman's motherhood, and ultimately a woman's choice.

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

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

I know what you guys are thinking, "ugh, another abortion topic". Sorry, I felt like I had to do one at some point. To sufficiently negate I do not need to prove that abortion is good, just that there is no justifiable reason to say that we "should" ban it. I'm sure my opponent will love and have a hayday with this, but I will be arguing that abortion is acceptable in every circumstance, except late term. I will take the extreme position. Lets begin. 1. Abortion is not a wrong form of murder, as some make it out to be. Abortion is, however, killing. I will agree to this any day. Yes, I said it. What we should realize though is that killing is not always unacceptable. For instance, stepping on an ant is technically an act of murder, you killed the ant. But we most likely agree that killing an ant isnt a big deal. Certainly not enough to justify the banning of ant killing. There are other examples I can provide, but what we can infer from this is that there are acceptable acts of killing. Now, its obvious that killing a real human being is considered a big deal. I agree. My point here is a fetus is not a human being. It is a compilation of undeveloped cells. Technically speaking, a fetus is less developed than any adult creature on the planet, such as our aforementioned ant friend. For this reason we cannot treat a formation of forming biological matter as a real human. Thus, because many nonhuman things aren't considered unacceptable to kill, a fetus should not be considered immune from death. 2. Forced beliefs. One of the great things about the legality of this act is that we have a choice of whether or not to exercise it. If people believe abortion is wrong, nobody is forcing them to have one. They have every right to say no. In the same respect, if a person feels the need to have one, more power to them. Theoretically speaking, this should make it to where abortion isnt as hot of an issue that it is, but sadly it doesn't. The reason is that certain pro-lifers feel like they have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their body. There is absolutely no respect for what other people believe. These people think that its somehow okay to force other people into doing what they believe is right. This notion is ridiculous. There are documented instances where extreme pro lifers have physically attacked or abused someone who had an abortion, simply because they did not agree with their belief. Its really a shame that this kind of thing happens over something that is bringing neither party any harm. So basically, I believe that people should be free from other people's coercions when making this decision. Let them make the choose themselves, and respect that choice. If you are against abortion and do not have one when you had the opportunity, I will respect your decision and leave you alone. I also expect you to have the same respect for my decision, and allow me to do what I want or need to do freely. Even though I'm a guy. But you get the point. By making abortion illegal, you are forcing your own beliefs onto hundreds of thousands of people. This is comparable to the many vast wars that have been started over religion. Millions of people have been killed simply because one group of people felt like they could force other people into accepting their religious beliefs. I'm sure all of us can agree this is wrong and a tragedy. Banning abortion is exactly the same concept. ---Preempt--- I expect my opponent to argue against this point that under this logic, we should also allow people to murder and respect their decision as to whether they kill or not. This is vastly different. Murder of a live human is something that is widely considered wrong by a strong majority of people, and has genuine external impacts in the real world. Abortion is a debatable issue, in addition to having very little, if any, notable impact on society. Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.