I would like to first admit this is my first debate, and thank you for participating with me.
On the debate topic "abortion", I will provide reasons in favor of it based on how it impacts society and individuals. I will not assert or continue any debate about what one personally should feel about the act of abortion in-and-of-itself.
I personally don't like it, choose not to do it, but must conclude the option is better supported than not allowed.
In my argument I will be making reference to a number of different kinds of abortions, though I am only making an argument in favor of "safe access to legal professional abortion".
Also called voluntary abortion. The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def 1 ) .
an immature and nonviable fetus.
To start my argument, I would like to invoke what I will argue are important factors in deciding whether abortion is acceptable on the terms I agreed to above. Than I will break down the arguments for each factor.
1) Importance of group sustainability
2) Human rights
3) Societal and individual health
4) Reduction in criminal behavior
**Importance of group sustainability**
Here I am making the argument that abortion, natural and/or assisted, is an integral part of group sustainability.
Basic "group sustainability argument" goes as follows:
1. A population can only sustain a certain amount of people based on the groups ability to also sustain "access" to food/water resources and space for the individuals to live. (Please answer YES or NO)
2. If there are more people than what can be provided for, some portion will suffer and die. (YES or NO)
3. Thus we can conclude that it is always in our best interest to keep open options for the population's control, in order to balance our sustainability. (YES or NO)
Conclusion: Abortion is favored
Conclusion is elaborated on: to reduce the amount of suffering and needless death of those brought into the world, only to suffer and die, should constitute a good thing; for it adds to the well-being of the people capable of continuing existence.
Any life which comes into this world does not only impact it's own existence, but others, sometimes a few, sometimes many.
The pregnancy can severely inhibit (circumstantially dependent) the mother's ability to sustain other areas of her life (health / opportunity), which in turn can impact other possible children already born and cared for, and/or future children yet to come.
The possible resources and energy used to sustain that life, that will inevitably die, is in some sense a wasted expense that serves no one other than a misguided and seemingly cruel mind, because it needlessly holds onto the idea that this person must live despite its destined desolation.
Even worse is when abortion is railed against by those whom proclaim they are fighting for a possible life they themselves are not willing to take care of, and will soon as possible turn a blind eye to the forthcoming, REAL suffering of lives effected by "their choices".
This moves me directly to the next part of my argument.
Here I will make the argument that the options of abortion is foremost the right of the person in which the possible life will be sustained. Those rights include: first this person's right to control their bodily functions in such a way that they can be considered to have aspirations to full participation, equal membership and active involvement in society. Without the right of reproductive choice, all other human rights: civil and political, economic and social, have only limited power to advance the well-being of the person.
1. The person for which abortion is not an option must, by virtue of circumstance, be unable to participate as an equal and active member of society. (YES or NO)
2. The option for safe access to abortion allows the person the opportunity to participate as an equal and active member of society. (YES or NO)
3. Thus we can conclude that the option to alleviate such disability is good; it allows for the person to maintain their human rights. This is good for the individual and society.
Conclusion: Abortion is favored
Conclusion is elaborated on: It can be further demonstrated by historical standards of human relations that, because of the person who bares the child, they, without abortion options, are forced to be dependent on others for well-being (with but few exceptions). By the words of Charlotte Perkins Gilman, " Wealth, power, social distinction, fame "not only these, but home and happiness, reputation, ease and pleasure, her bread and butter, --all, must come to her through a small gold ring".... I would add state assistance(within certain countries); which is a whole other issue, but very contingent to the circumstances involved here.
Although, Gilman was speaking about the choices available to women at the time, abortion plays a critical role in how women can combat the subservient and dependent life style, and maintain their independence and thus her human rights. I remind us of what Margaret Sanger wrote: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."
**Societal and individual health**
Here I will make the argument that the health of society and the individual is better sustained with safe access to legal professional abortion.
1. Within society and/or with an individual trying to survive, abortion will happen. (YES or NO)
2. If no safe access to abortion is available, the means to accomplish the abortion are dangerous and lead to unsafe choices. The likelihood of the individual developing damaging health consequences (physically and mentally) and even contingent agents not directly involved in the abortion, can be great (YES or NO)
3. Legal and regulated safe access to professional abortion will provide better control for the health of the people.
Conclusion: Abortion is favored
Conclusion is elaborated on: as with most actions, the lack of action still has consequences. Here an argument is made that the results of not acting to provide safe access to abortion only increases the harm done. The fact that you or I don't like abortion does not reduce the fact that it will be done, and if we truly do care about the well-being of people, we will make the hard choice to allow safe access to professional abortions.
**Reduction in criminal behavior**
Here I will make the argument that allowing safe access to professional abortion reduces the criminal behavior involved in illegal abortion, including but not limited to, unregulated procedures:
1. Illegal abortions are unregulated, unprofessional, and can include a number of other illegal activities. (YES or NO)
2. Legal abortion can be regulated, with properly educated professionals, and will provide records of all actions involved in procedures needed to accomplish the task.
3. Legal safe access to professional abortion will reduce a large number of criminal activities that otherwise would not take place.
Conclusion: Abortion is favored
Conclusion is elaborated on: safe access to professional abortion reduces the criminal behavior involved in illegal abortion, including but not limited to, unregulated procedures: equipment used, location, and the number of criminal activities required to get access to drugs, etc... Also included are the lack of professional support with access to accurate and up-to-date information about all the things involved in abortion, i.e. history, modern understanding of the process, physiological analysis, physical exams before and after the procedure. I would like to add the form of payment, as it will be under the table and lacking any records of responsibility.
Sources will be included in next round. No Room.
1.) Yes. A population can only sustain a certain amount of people. Does that give us the right to decide who lives and who doesn't? This isn't really a good reason because no mother gets and abortion because she feels it's necessary to keep the Earths population from getting to high.
2.) Yes. But we are nowhere near that point. Again as said before, we have no right in saying who lives and who can't.
3.) Again as said before, we have no right to say who lives and who can't.
Conclusion: if this is what you are saying, then shouldn't we be aborting almost every kid in Africa at this time now that life is difficult to survive there? Saying killing an unborn baby so it doesn't have to suffer doesn't make sense.
"The pregnancy can severely inhibit the mother's ability to sustain other areas of her life, which in turn can impact other possible children born and cared for, and/or future children to come" - obese woman do it all the time.
1.) No. You have no right in doing anything about the death penalty because you are no on death row. You have no right in saying the holocaust was wrong because you are not Jewish (assuming you are not Jewish). Anyone who has or was ever threatened by a gun are the only ones who have the right to defend gun control. As you can see none of these make sense.
2.) Yes and no. I don't know anyone who "doesn't accept" pregnant people.
3.) What is considered human rights? Human rights or overall life? How is it good for society? When I see a pregnant woman, I don't think she should kill it so she could "fit in". If you are having a kid, and you can't take care of it, put it up for adoption!
She is choosing to a mother when she has sex. Sometimes in her position, probationary will be lucky and not get pregnant.
SOCIETAL AND INDIVIDUAL HEALTH
1.) I believe in abortion only for the life of the mother.
2.) I don't think they should give abortions anyways. Let's say a father has his sons party at his house that will be filled with drugs, and the father knows there will be drugs. Does it make it better? No they are still doing the drugs.
3.) Legal and regulated safe access to unlimited hamburgers will provide better control for the health of the people.
REDUCTION IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
3.) No answer. What type of criminal activities? Someone robbing a store? Are you saying society would be better off if they were never born? Obama smoked marijuana when he was young. That was a criminal act. He is now president.
If you can find a doctor who is able to do a legal abortion, you can find someone who can take care of the kid.
CONCLUSION- abortion is not justified besides the life of the mother. We cannot assume life would be better off if we keep up with abortions. Criminal rate is to small of a point to make.
1.) We are not capable of 100% foreknowledge, so the choices we make are always in doubt, but we pursue our best efforts to access the relevant data to help conclude our best options. The choice to abort or not to abort will have consequences; you are not getting out of this, either way you will be contributing to the death of a possible life. (Perhaps you hold some view that you are not responsible for not acting, and/or believe there is some arbiter to natural circumstances for death?)
“Group sustainability” does not only mean “Earth’s population”, it can be in respect to her individual circumstances for sustainability as the possible child makes her a group of two ; whether by herself, among a group of 6, or a larger group of a few thousand people and more. Sustainability has been the number one reason for most of human existence, though I might add, for most of that time the process of abortion was not understood, and instead infanticide was the typical course taken. 
The number one reason for having an abortion in modern times is still “sustainability”.
“The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study” –Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005 
2.) This certainly is not true, perhaps you have little concept of exponential population growth , or the fact that all over the world people are dying from starvation, dehydration, bad hygiene a lack of basic human rights. It is not always so much about if we have enough resources, but how well it can be accessed. For perspective diarrhea causes 1.4 million preventable child deaths per year, and malnutrition 860 000 preventable child deaths per year. 
What is the reason for these “preventable deaths”? It is lacking access to important resources for survival.
“Exclusion from clean water and basic sanitation destroys more lives than any war or terrorist act.” 
If we can overcome these burdens of access, we will have fewer reasons for a person to perform an abortion.
3.) No, but an option should be available for those in the circumstances I have argued.
I hope you are not attempting to mask “suffering” in some ambiguous notions so to equate the suffering of a fetus or “unborn child” to a “born child” whose suffering will be greater because their capacity to realizing this burden on themselves and those in his/her life.
Your use of the terms “unborn baby” and “killing” must arouse certain emotions in you, so as to distract you from the further consequences of your “lack of action” to prevent unneeded suffering and the emotional, physical damages caused by those state of events. I would contend that many parents have found themselves in the hard place to conclude that their sick and dying child should not be allowed to continue to suffer.
You remarked “the obese women do it all the time”, yes I suppose, that is their personal right to choose to do so. Good reasons for or against their personal choice is another matter, and not part of this debate.
1.) Doesn’t make sense, nor do I think it fits the context of proposition 1. The person, for whom abortion is not an option must by virtue of that circumstance, be unable to participate as an equal and active member of society.
2.) Pressure in group participation can come from many different avenues: from the peer pressure to fit in and do what everyone else is doing (foolish or not), parental control demanding their child is not going to jeopardize her education and future career, or forced on those trapped in human trafficking (mainly prostitution) ; females have a long history of becoming victims of forced abortion.
3.) I certainly am aware people have their own personal ideas, but I am using a defined and nationally agreed upon definition cited earlier in Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
I believe I explained ‘why it is good for society and individuals; maintaining women’s human rights which I briefly elaborated on, I also believe it accomplishes all that I have reasoned in my arguments.
I never asked what you thought a woman should do to “fit in”.
Adoption is an option. But there are a lot of children out there looking for homes right now, and many that never get adopted, “Each year, over 27,000 youth “age out” of foster care” . Though there was slight drop in recent years in the US, let us not forget around the world there are an estimated 153 million orphans; your (only adoption) is not in proportion with reality, which I think is a common problem with a number of your responses. You are suggesting that we increase the number of orphans by possibly another 40 million a year? Not to mention the increase in the damages caused by illegal abortions, that otherwise would have been done safely.
SOCIETAL AND INDIVIDUAL HEALTH
1.) That is good you believe abortion should be used for the health of the mother, but then you go on the say you don’t think they should give abortions? That doesn’t seem to me to be congruent with your response to the first proposition, but I may be misunderstanding?
2.) That analogy is completely preposterous; there is a huge difference in illegal abortion and the benefits brought to society, most importantly to individuals by allowing safe access to legal regulated professional abortion.
“Of the approximately 21 million abortions are performed by unskilled individuals, in environments that do not meet minimum medical standards or both”, and “unsafe abortion is the cause of 70,000 maternal deaths each year” plus many other health complication. 
Yet, I will turn your analogy on you. Just as I believe I have demonstrated in the above arguments: that legalization can have a greater impact, because of the authority to improve oversight and maintain the healthiest situation of what otherwise would have happened and resulted in greater harm from lack of even minor control of many health variables.
So, there may be drugs in the house, but most certainly the dad’s knowledge of the drugs in the house during the party are better than not know about the drugs being there. He can know where it is at, who is possibly doing it and could try and do something about it: watch and care for people as best he can, attempt to take, perhaps have it locked safely away, or call the police, etc...
3.) I contest the meaning of “unlimited”, but yes, “regulated safe access” to hamburgers would be better than, unregulated and unsafe access to it. 
REDUCTION IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
3.) If the first two propositions are true, the conclusion follows; and you answered yes to both. I explained what “criminal activates” in my argument, please review.
I said, “Legal safe access to professional abortion will reduce a number of criminal activities that otherwise would have taken place.” The criminal activities are those which take place during an illegal abortion, not by the child who otherwise would have been aborted.
 Harris, Marvin (1977). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. NY: Random House. http://en.wikipedia.org...
 1st Page, under “CONCLUSIONS” -- http://www.guttmacher.org...
 -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
 Page 7 -- http://whqlibdoc.who.int...
 Ch1. Page 27 -- http://hdr.undp.org...
 Figure 1 -- http://www.fosteringconnections.org...
 1st paragraph & first graph -- http://www.guttmacher.org...
Again we don"t have the right to choose who lives and who cant. An unborn child has the right to life.
Also as you can see, everyone who is pro-choice has been born, so it is a little hypocritical.
Again if responsibility is the problem, there is adoption. I don"t know why people ignore that.
2.)So what is your point? We"re talking about America where we have plenty of resources.
You say 860,000 children die a year. So you"re saying that other children can"t be born?
Again these are not the reasons woman get abortions.
3.)Does it matter if they suffer? Woman doesn"t suffer either when they are dealing with a pregnancy as much as being ripped apart. I believe a woman has made her choice once she has had sex. You must deal with the consequences just like any other action you may regret. Abortion is a sad and easy way out. It also takes a life. And yes it does take a life. Just because the baby can support itself, and needs the mother to survive, doesn"t mean she should have the right to kill it. If this is what you"re saying, people on life support have no human rights either.
Being obese is a personal choice as much as getting pregnant.
4.)Human rights "
1.)I am being taxed for abortions. I don"t like them. So yes I should have a say in abortion. I don"t really get what you"re saying.
2.)You always have a choice. No one can force you to have an abortion. Aborting a child because it might affect your career is a pretty sick excuse.
If you are scared of it affecting your career, then do ADOPTION. I don"t know anyone who said they should have been aborted because they have had a hard childhood, other than some people who may have depression, etc.
"I am the parent and I choose what I think is best for my kid. Therefore I choose he can"t live at all". Makes perfect sense"
3.)Where does it say you are allowed to kill your kid because you don"t feel like taking care of it? Abortion didn"t exist back then, at least the way we do it.
You are treating these children like animals, saying there are too many so we should have anymore and we should not let them live. You are comparing orphanages to "the pound" where homeless animals go.
Societal and individual health-
1.)I believe abortion should only be allowed for the life of the mother. There are many things we can do to make this optional.
2.)Illegal or not, it"s wrong. I don"t see your point. I don"t care if it"s safe or not, the baby dies either way. It"s the baby I"m worrying about. The mother shouldn"t get one anyways. (Remember I"m talking about situations other than the life of the mother).
Call the police? Calling the police is to stop the party. In this example you are saying we should stop abortion. Besides im talking about kids doing the drugs and the dad being ok with it, just there to look over them.
Dangerously obese people have "safe access" to hamburgers and it obviously isn"t working.
Reduction in criminal behavior - Making it illegal, whether it makes a difference or not, would stop many abortions and certainly slow them down.
Im posting now I ran out of time ill be posting more in the next round
Your responses have become more like chaotic rants, then straight forward replies to the actual context of the contentions in the beginning. You tend to generalize where specifics are needed and you have repeatedly stated the way you feel without substantiating your position with reasonable arguments based on acquirable information about our world.
I am under the impression you are not even researching anything on the subject, as your response are not well balanced to the data on reality.
1.) Rare situations? Here are the top three reasons for abortion 
--negative impact on the mother's life
--relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother
The majority of women who choose abortions have already given birth. Mothers who have had one or more children comprise over 60% of all abortions, and women who do not have protected/birth control accounts for only 8% of abortions  I really didn’t expect you to reason people should only have sex for procreation.
The reasoning you are conveying is skewed, and it is misleading you to believe you are not responsible for the outcomes of tomorrow, because you did not act today. Please review my arguments on this subject.
Again, my contention are based on the logic, that if (a), and if (b), then (c) is true. I explain my reasons; here I am arguing that suffering is a good thing to reduce, which I stated at the beginning of my elaboration on the conclusion.
I did not ignore the ”choice” of adoption; I supported it, I also briefly explained and gave you sources to review the consequences of the amount of children already put up for adoption in America and worldwide). I really don’t think you understand the compounding impact of your position of “abortion only”.
3.) Yes, I think suffering matters; it is one possible way we may find tangible criteria to take into account to help make more reasonable decisions.
It is very rare for women in the US to die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth (that is a good thing), and of those few, many did not receive medical care during pregnancy. Although, 1 in 6 pregnant women experience some form of pregnancy complication. 
No, the women can choose to have sex without also choosing to “possibly” become pregnant and rear a child. This is where you don’t understand your argument denies women their basic human rights. Your argument is further complicated by how our sexual behaviors have evolved. Most humans now don’t live under conditions that give strong incentives for high births rates, usually to counter the high death rates. We are adapted to a high level of sexual appetite, high male sperm count (more than we ever need), and why it has been hard to conclude, some studies have shown females unconsciously respond to chemical difference in males perspiration, i.e. sexually aroused male Vs. male with no sexual intentions. 
Abortion can be sad, and no, not always an easy way out. And, I must say, I think your prognoses are ignorant of a vast amount of information on the subject; this to me makes some of your positions seem very rude in considering all the aspects of these topics and how people deal with the agenda of abortion.
Modern human rights are not usually predicated by our ability to care for ourselves; at least this can be true for the last several decades as the Humanitarian Revolution unfolded. The issue is usually to what degree of suffering can be determined, though it certainly is an open subject, but abortion is not entirely depended on it such a proposition.
Under the definition of human rights I have given, a person on life support is guaranteed their human rights, although this too can be subject to change given the certain circumstances.
If you really are arguing that people who cannot care for a child should still have a child, this is your choice; though it seems horribly ill-conceived to me. Remember adoption can be a good option, but not always, and sometimes not even an option. Don’t confuse adoption with solution; you may be attempting to pass on a problem, not actually solve it (the child is not a problem in-of-itself, but the circumstance brought about by the emergence of the child into the problematic situation is the problem).
1.) I believe you are correct in asserting that you should not be obligated to support abortion with your tax dollars.
2.) No, females do not always have a choice in getting pregnant, and based on your arguments against abortion you attempt to take chooses away from women, by dismantling their basic right to choose to become a mother. The women can choose to have sex without also choosing to “possibly” become pregnant and rear a child as I stated above.
3.) “You are allowed kill your kid” was not said by any of the sources I cited, nor did I say it. You are possibly (I assume unconsciously) trying to arouse certain emotions with terminology that signals to the reader’s brain the association of a toddle or a born baby. It may be hard to understand, but there is a difference. I don’t assume you are against the use of contraceptives? There are a vast amount of sperm lost to eternity, “possible lives”, be it half of a possible life in some sense; or the egg in the women, does that egg fall under your “kid” category, this may sound weird, but there are difference stages in the productions of life that should help us differentiate things so we may make more reasonable responses to problems.
Article 1. All human beings are “born free and equal in dignity and rights”. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.  It is international agreed that humans are granted their human rights upon birth. Even so, I am not arguing that abortion at any point of the pregnancy is equal, nor am I arguing that those who may choose abortion should not consider all other options first and foremost. I believe in fighting for any and all rights the possible child can have which will not impede the mothers fully granted human rights.
I certainly am not treating children “like animals” (assuming that means how animals more likely to be treated cruelly), quite the opposite; I am asking you and others to consider that it is fundamental we consider actions to prevent greater harm and suffering, and always striving to reduce the need for any extremities to accomplish such goals. We are animals in the biological sense and are you insinuating we should treat non-humans as though they are beneath us?
Societal and Individual Health
2.) I will leave the part for readers to decipher.
You are confusing the idea of possibilities with correct answer and as I said, the analogy is preposterous; they are not cross-comparative, though I made a rough abstract analogy of the improvement of oversight. Yes, the dad’s knowledge of the kids doing the drugs makes him capable to assess the situation, which would be safer if he didn’t know.
You are only making an argument for what safe access is, not that safe access is bad (that is an oxymoron). Safe access can be subjected to change and appropriation in-order make access safer than it otherwise would be, and why it might not be as safe as we want, I argue it does make it safer and cited a study. 
Reduction in Criminal Behavior
If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal. Making abortion illegal does not significantly reduce abortion. 
zezima forfeited this round.
Since my opponent forfeits this around, I will add another possible contention, and will follow that up with how we can possibly reduce the need for the act of abortion.
I have argued that sustainability has been the number one reason for most of human existence, and as I stated before, for most of that time the process of abortion was not understood, and instead infanticide was the typical course taken.  And, it is still a human rights issue today, estimated to be 1 in 3000-5000 children of all ages, and 2.1 per 100,000 newborns per year. 
This leads me to the follow argument.
Contentions 5: access to abortion reduces human right violations
1. People will commit infanticide, which is a human rights violation.
2. Legal access to abortion contributes to a large reduction in infanticide. 
3. Thus, safe access to abortion can reduce human right’s violations.
Conclusion: Abortion is favored
Conclusion elaborated on: people will commit infanticide for a number of reasons: including, but not limited to their ability care for the child, want of the child, or forced participation with group etc… Human rights are granted to a person upon birth according to international law ; therefore once a child is born and infanticide is committed, this is a violation of that child’s human rights. Abortion helps reduce the actions of infanticide, by giving the parent control over their reproductive system and eliminate the suffering destined for the born child.
The following are some substantiated criteria in which we are able to reduce the use of abortion, and some that are possible sources for reductions.
1. Strongly implementing contraception programs alone can dramatically reduce abortion rates. 
2. Available safe access to highly regulated abortion programs (with evaluations and up-to-date educational programs), can even reduce abortions. 
3. Early sex education, people who learn about sex earlier are less likely to have sex , thus reducing the propensity for a situation that might lead to an abortion.
4. The strengthening of gender equality in education, workplace / government, and home produces opportunity for women to support a pregnancy and have a more stable future for rearing the child, reducing an abortion that otherwise might have taken place(despite any other abortion done prior or after planned pregnancy).  By reducing some of the reasons women give for having an abortion, will in-turn reduce some of the abortion that might have otherwise taken place.
5. Mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws, by making unprotected sex acknowledged problem to avoid, may have effects that reduce risky sexual behavior of teens which can continue into adulthood. 
6. Improved contraceptive, why it is not well studied, many do express that they don’t use condoms because it reduces the pleasure. But, not only improved pleasure but less allergenic. This is possibly a big potential for a reduction in unplanned pregnancies and thus a possible reduction in abortions:  
• 22% stated their partner did not want to use contraception.
• 16% cited side effects.
7. Improved ovulating detection technology and cheap reproductive screening for female and male. Having it strongly implement in social and sex education programs, could possibly reduce the reasons given for an unintended pregnancy, thus a possible reduction is the number of potential abortions: 
• 33% felt they could not get pregnant at the time of conception.
• 10% felt they or their partner were sterile.
I think I have made some solid arguments in favor of abortion, and responded to my opponent with respect, a willingness to review, learn, and argue accordingly based on what could be established, and/or reasonably argued.
In total, I made 5 contentions:
1) Importance of group sustainability
2) Human rights
3) Societal and individual health
4) Reduction in criminal behavior
5) Access to abortion reduces infantacide, a human rights violations
Please take time to review each of my contention from the beginning and attempt to follow them through the rounds, and I hope those who read the debate, enjoyed it, and also find my arguments more convincing. Thank you :)
I also, would like to thank my opponent Zezima.
 Harris, Marvin (1977). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. NY: Random House.
(a chart of data found in this study) http://www.guttmacher.org...