Abortion should continue to be legal here in the U.S.A (first thing to pop in my head)
Debate Rounds (5)
http://dictionary.reference.com...), should be allowed in the U.S.A for the sake of preserving our democractic nation.
Only tolerance of abortion will allow our democracy to live up to its name and protect the rights of the United States Citizens. Even when majority of the population is against a practice such as abortion then it should not be banned; Where would the United States be if Religion had such dictation by the government? Definitely not the Super Power of the world. If the U.S. is not the super power of the world then leadership will only submerge making Nuclear War inevitable. Nuclear war over who will be the new preeminent power will take out the entire population, if not then most. Europe was pretty peaceful place before the rise of Hitler. More countries are developing nuclear weapons.
Allowing America to procreate at the accelerated rate in the status quo will only lead to disater. Banning abortion will allow the population to skyrocket thus producing less food for more people. If we can't feed our people then america has failed to provide its people with life and good health.
Many families abort because of timing. Many parents wish not to live in poverty and that is the only outcome for those who are underaged and have yet to obtain the neccessary education needed to fully particpate in the labor workforce. Abort now or live in poverty. Once in poverty there is a cycle that begins and is nearly impossible to escape for generations down the line.
Allowing People to grow up in poverty is as unacceptable as slavery policymakers have an obligation to prevent and keep it from persisting. If the Government prohbited dabortion then the governement basically fails to provide its citizen with there natural rights.
When people terminte their pregnancy, they are doing so to better thier lives and not live in poverty which benefits the economy. When their is an educated workforce, Job opportunities are endless and is wealth.
Morlity is not an issue here since human rights are not taken through the process. Human rights are rights given to people not fetus therefore any claim that the baby has any rights are unlegit. If their is any morality issue its allowing children to be born in poverty.
I reserve the right to clarify anything.
We will define "life" as "the period during which something is functional" (Princeton, prefer our definition because in collegiate context).
My opponent's claims that the "tolerance of abortion" will lead to a better democracy is flawed and contradictory. Actually, abortion rates have fell worldwide (from 46 million in 1996 to 42 million worldwide in 2003) according to the World Health Organization report cited by Reuters.
Therefore, if our country legalized abortion and reversed the trend of recent years, we would be going against this trend which would alienate the rest of the world, therefore decreasing our leadership influence around the world. Turn-The refusal of a debate on the legality/morality of abortion will actually decrease the influence of our democracy around the world. Turn- when we have more members of our society, we will continue our nation's legacy with a larger population.. only this way can we continue our leadership around the world.
Also, pro-life activists are not only bound to a religion. The morality of the value of life is a human value. When millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled, and other minorities were killed by the Nazi party, it was denounced by most of the countries of the world. We continue to respect the value of life today..this value did not originate in the institution of religion.
For thousands of years, abortion was illegal or not used. Did we see the effects of food shortages? No, or at least not because of the lack of abortion. Turn-Your claim that America has the obligation to provide its people "with life and good health" is true. However, America also has the obligation to stand strong on the morals and values that our nation was founded on.
I ask you, my opponent, how to you justify MURDERING YOUR CHILD?
As for your timing arguments, prefer our counterplan (see below)
This is a complete contradictory advantage. When the a baby is born and not aborted, we have MORE EDUCATED MEMBERS of our society, this way they contribute to our economy and society as a whole. Also, when we have more members in our society, the world's economy will flourish and relations with other nations will be better, leading to a better world overall.
How dare you say "morality is not an issue here since human rights are not taken through the process." This ENTIRE DEBATE we are having is a human right for all people. We respect animals and our environment, why not our future children?
As abstinence is not realistic in today's society..we provide the following counterplan:
We can provide more forms of contraception to prevent un-wanted pregnancies, including birth control and condoms.
This way, we can:
1) Solve all affirmative advantages (including poverty) and impacts through preventing these pregnancies.
2) Live up to our individuals and nation's moral values.
I also reserve the right to clarify any above mentioned arguments.
1. Life is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." ( http://dictionary.reference.com...)
2. Prefer this counter definition because it's more direct and specific to the case. The Negative's definition allows for non-living things to be characterized as having life. This adds to the number of different lives that are currently being medically aborted, making the negative's definition extra topical and conditional. The negative could respond with allegations beyond the abortion of a human fetus. In order to maintain a good debate, I ask that the affirmative's definition be used because it narrows down things to organisms.
The affirmative would now like to submit another definition.
1. The medical procedure of abortion is "to cause to bring forth (a fetus) from the uterus before the fetus is viable." (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
2. Viable means "capable of living." ( http://dictionary.reference.com...)
These definitions prove that the fetuses being aborted are incapable of living, and therefore has no life.
Prefer these definitions because their common and used by common people. Besides we are debating about something that affects common people.
The Negative's evidence references a global drop in abortion, not the abortion rate in the US specifically. Therefore that piece of information is irrelevant and should be excluded from the debate. Yes abortions have declined due to environmental factors not constituted in the negative's evidence such as health care availability, a number of people who do not abort because they are misinformed into believing that fetuses have lives, and are simply ashamed or forced into not getting abortions.
Each year there are 1.2 million abortions in the US. According to ABA Family Legal Guide (http://public.findlaw.com...)
The affirmative asks that this video is watched as a piece of evidence ( http://community.feministing.com... )
The negative stated by legalizing abortion, we would go against the trend in recent years which would alienate the rest of the world and therefore decreasing leadership. But abortion is currently legal and the impact of decreasing leadership is denied. Currently this debate is about the morality/legality of aborition. Your turn has been canceled. Case turn, having more people generally increases the military power which is a form of hard power. We have been using our hard power for years and we have seen proliferation and terrorism prevalent. It is now time we let our soft power lead by preventing poverty from existing and not discriminating: mainly against practices of abortion. Abortion does not violate any legal or moral matter.
My opponent states that pro-life activist are bound to human value and that when people where killed by the Nazi party the entire world denounced that genocide. Abortion is not Genocide and does not kill anything. Early in this round I proved that fetuses are not living and therefore cannot be killed or be victims of Genocide.
Leadership has been successfully defended and I would now ask the judges to extend the leadership advantages mentioned in the first round by AFF about preventing nuclear war.
My partner said "For thousands of years, abortion was illegal or not used. Did we see the effects of food shortages? No, or at least not because of the lack of abortion." this information is true. My opponent did not state that people are becoming more and more specialized which means more and more people aren't farming. Instead, they are working in industries. When we have a limited number of farmers (and if abortion stops 1.2 million more people each year then is occurring in status quo) Food Shortage will be inevitable. Turn denied due to inability to provide morals. And if the moral issue you are referring to is killing, then that is also denied because I have made it clear that abortion does not involve killing.
Justifying child murder is morally wrong, but abortion is not child murdering.
The affirmative has successfully defend the poverty advantage and I ask the impacts mention by the affirmative case stating that solving for poverty is a moral obligation be pulled through to this round. Abortion is the only effective way to solve.
No Contradictory Advantage: When the baby is born and LVING in poverty which is the case, they are in poverty and therefore uneducated. They aren't educated because they can't afford to go to college and wont make it to college. High School dropout rates are very high in poverty. They are also trapped and their children will be trapped. Again, the cycle of poverty is generational and every child born after the first is likely to be impoverished, thus meaning no positive contribution to the economy. Poverty is estimated to cost or economy 500 billion in lost productivity. The working poor class does not contribute to the economy, they lower the GDP making us a poorer nation. When we have more poor people we have higher taxes which means less consumer spending which also means a bad economy. More members in society would be good if each and every member was productive. More people would even be good, but only if we equally increased people in poverty and the rich. People in poverty are the ones needing abortion and having them if we prevent abortion from persisting then poor population only grows. That is not beneficial to the economy.
The affirmative successfully defended the econ advantage and know asks to extend the impacts from above from the first round stating that solving for abortion prevents poverty. Poverty causes a depressed economy and risk econ collapse. Economy collapse cause Nuclear War. Abortion is the only effective way.
The counter plan alone will not succeed due to the .01 percent chance that condoms do not work, and due to the fact that not all females will put themselves in harms way to prevent pregnancy and therefore wont do birth control.
Disadvantage: Huge amounts of plastic is not good for the environment. Since sex is something people do on an everyday bases and sometimes more than once, the world would experience huge plastic contamination and therefore global warming would occur faster than in the status quo.
Perm do both: for those who feel abortion is immoral condoms and birth control is the way. Fit the counter plan into affirmative plan. Our plan would avoid the disad against the negative counter plan because people in our plan would still get abortions.
NO MORAL obligation, The American people have been fooled into believing they do.
Common people? Prefer our definition because it's from Princeton University, all of yours are from an online dictionary.
I'll clarify for my opponent who didn't understand the argument I was making: The entire basis of my negative attack against your advantage was that the global drop in abortion means that if the U.S. would REVERSE THIS TREND.. which would alienate the other countries that are limiting their abortions and providing alternatives to abortion (see counterplan).
Actually, abortions have DECLINED SINCE 2005. Therefore, why should we reverse a declining trend? We both win in a world of the counterplan. You can read the source (abstract) here: (http://journals.lww.com...
Why shouldn't people be "ashamed" of killing a fetus? Would you be ashamed and sad if you had to kill your family dog? Yes!
In response to their "answer" to our turn. Actually, you ignore our trend evidence. When the United States continues to legalize abortion and the abortion rate increases, you will alienate critical political and trade allies in the Middle East that do not have legalized abortion, including Saudi Arabia.
My opponent's case turn that "more people generally increases military power" is actually incorrect. Yes, we may see small increases, but the impact will not be that dramatic. Also, I never said that soft power was bad. Turn-a larger population leads to more soft/hard power (hegemony) balance because more people will go into diplomatic relations offices and also small increase of military power. Only this way, with a balanced effort, will we be able to prevent a global nuclear exchange.
Actually my opponent hit it right on the nail. We have moved to a more industrial society, obviously, and that is the argument. When we have more people in the farming industry, THEN we can prevent food shortages. If we increase the amount of people in our country, then more people can move to un-crowded rural areas where there is not enough population and farm there.
How dare you, opponent! How can you say that people who are in poverty are "therefore uneducated".
Also, abortions are only used by the lower class. They are just as much used to prevent unwanted pregnancies when the shopping-suburbanite-college-student gets pregnant in college and aborts the baby. Infact, 51.0% of all aborting-mothers have incomes over $30,000, which is above the poverty line. (http://www.abortionno.org...)Therefore, this takes out your entire economy/poverty advantages because you cannot access them when those people having abortions aren't even poor. Also, 60% of all abortions happen to white women.
Your argument that the rich will have to pay for more social services for the poor is incorrect. ACTUALLY, THE POOR PAY MORE STATE/LOCAL TAXES THAN THE RICH. (http://newstandardnews.net..... see the graph).
This takes out your entire advantage.
"Condoms don't work"- Actually condoms are extremely effective. Please read all of the statistics on this website: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org....
Turn- As it says in my source, condoms are the only way to prevent HIV/AIDS infection, besides abstinence. AIDS is extremely prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa and in other places around the world. If we adopt a encourage condom use on the federal and local level, we can be an example for the rest of the world. Because of the high medical costs that go along with HIV/AIDS, prevention will have an extreme effect on the economies of the individuals and governments of Africa and other places.
A/T DA- People actually have sex 127 times per year (http://marriage.about.com...), therefore there is no Uniqueness for this argument. No link: Condoms are actually made of latex, which includes environmental compounds from roots, gums, resins, sugars, and starches. These materials are renewable and can be continuously planted.
A/T Perm- The perm wouldn't work because we'd still have all of the problems with abortion mentioned above.
"The American people have been fooled into believing they do": And that doesn't matter because politicians are supposed to stand up for their constituents..if they don't, they will vote their representatives (including you) out of office.
The Negative argue has no ground. Abortion in the status quo has legal. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade that any law outlawing abortion was unconstitutional. Unconstitutional because banning abortion, steals the right of innocent citizens. If abortion is legal in the status quo then any impacts would have already occured. Therefore no trends will be reversed and the affirmative's still have a leadership advantage.
Again refer back to aff in round two, Abortion does not kill a fetus because a fetus can not be killed because a fetus is non-living. Therefore there is no need for justification.
The abortion rate will likely continue to decrease with the plan active, but any increase will have no impact in other countries and therefore no impacts will occur. Affirmative answer to the turn still stands because I have made it clear that no trends will be reversed.
In addtion, no country has forced their beliefs about abortion upon the U.S. and they will not suddenly start.
I'd like to clarify, my opponent agreed that I was correct and that there will be an increase in military strength. Any increase causes hard power to increase. Balance of soft and hard power is not good. Hard power is what has the U.S. currently fighting 2 wars. Soft is more advantageous because it prevents proliferation.
Misinterpretation by the negation. Increases in an industrialized society will give people the mindsets to go out and find jobs that are indoors where they will complete specialized sophisticated work. No one wants to do manual labor. People want to get paid to think, its much less demanding and more rewarding both salary wise and gdp wise.
No the affirmative case still stands, the plan prevents the 51% of suburbanite abortions that will lead to poverty. In addition, The plan will allow poor people to stay in school and get educated and not drop out to take care of their children.
60% of abortions may be taken by white women, but that percentage does not take into account the population ratio between other races. If there are more white women the black, Hispanic, or Asian, then of course white women will have the higher abortion percentage.
No poor pay a higher percentage of their income, but the rich indeed pay more money.
Advantageous have been successfully defended and I now ask that our impacts be extended.
Condoms might work, but people will not use them. They take away the feeling. Also condoms are given away everyday and we still a large amount of males not using them.
Plus its easier to abort when you know you have a fetus developing then to remember to wear a condom or take a birth control pill every so often.
Aids is not a major problem in the U.S., technology today and treatments all allows aid recipients to live long full lives will into their 70's.
The number of times people have sex doesn't mater. More than one condom per week is too much. Over half the population flushes condoms. Most condoms are made of latex, which means that they will biodegrade. Latex, however, does not biodegrade when it is under water, which is why it is not good to flush your used condoms. Condoms are not entirely made of latex, however, and the other things on condoms (spermicide, lubricant) will affect the biodegradability. So the impacts will still occur just not as fast.
Perm does work because there are no disad to abortion.
"People are tricked into believing abortion is bad" is a legit argument. Even if politicians are suppose to stand up for their beliefs that does not grant them the right to lie and coerce the public. As I've made clear, Abortion does not killing or hurt anybody. Besides Deciding on if one should or shouldn't receive an abortion is a personally decision and should not be addressed on a national bases.
Once again, my opponent does not understand my argument. Saying that "any increase will have no impact in other countries and therefore no impacts will occur" is extremely preposterous and no warrants are cited. Extend our arguments that when a trend is reversed against the trends of the world, violence will erupt because of it.
My opponent says that the "balance of soft and hard power is not good." This balance of hegemony is CRITICAL to the foreign policy decisions of the United States. Simply only using hard/soft power alone will decrease the U.S' influence abroad and lead to war (Khalilzad). But my opponent actually CONCEDES that soft power is good.. and we turned this argument saying that a higher population LEADS TO MORE soft power.
"No one wants to do manual labor"-- this is based on the status quo. When our population increases, people will want to find work.. so they will have to move to rural farms where they will live happy lives among the cattle and outdoors.
Turn- a larger population in rural areas leads to a higher standard of living and health because of the decrease of risk of cancers and other respiratory diseases due to the pollutants in cities. Also, higher populations in cities lead to a better quality of life because of the influx of jobs.
People with higher incomes will NOT BE AFFECTED by not aborting their babies. On average, a baby costs $17,005 (http://www.time.com...) to raise per year. Therefore, a single mother that makes over $30,000 per year will be able to support herself and her baby, not including if her spouse also has an income. Extend our poverty line arguments.
We'll concede our race argument.. however you need to weigh the ECONOMIC STATISTICS higher.
Your argument that "No poor pay a higher percentage of their income" in taxes obviously avoided our evidence. (http://newstandardnews.net........ see the graph).
You say no one will use condoms? And they "take away the feeling" ?! Are you living in the 70s? Condoms are extremely popular with the entire population, especially recent increases in teen condom use. (http://www.theprovince.com...) Condom use can actually increase this "feeling" by allowing their partner to help.
It is actually not as easy to abort as you think. Abortions costs over $600 and it is sometimes hard to do.
The impact of HIV/AIDS has greatly affected the U.S. health landscape. We didn't know about HIV/AIDS until recent years because of its impact. In fact, over half a million people have died in the U.S. alone from AIDS. (http://www.avert.org...)
We said there was no-link to your argument in Round 2 when I argued that latex is actually an organic compound that can biodegrate. However, I will concede that toilet-flushing is a big deal. However, its popularity has been greatly decreased because of recent public awareness campaigns. Also, there are many alternatives to "flushing" which are outlined here: http://ezinearticles.com....
Furthermore, the Affirmative (Pro) opponent has really offence on any of his arguments and you should definitely vote in Negation.
Stokesmarv1 forfeited this round.
*May the best person win!*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zachrkhs 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.