Resolved: The Supreme Court case "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned.

I strongly affirm resolved that The Supreme Court case "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned. First, definitions: life - the period between conception of an entity and its expiration abortion - the termination of the fetus of a human child Roe v. Wade - a Supreme Court case that deemed it unconstitutional to deny the right of a woman to abort her child during the first trimester of pregnancy The framework for this round is the Constitution, because it is a natural document that dictates the rights and responsibilities of American individuals. Since "Roe v. Wade" regards policies in the United States, the Constitution should be an accessible and fair standard for both sides of this debate. Whichever side better adheres to the wishes of the Constitution is the won that winds this round. My PLAN for this round is to overturn Roe v. Wade BUT to implement a law that allows women to have up to two abortions in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's health, or danger to the child's health. As this is not a Policy round, it is not my burden to show evidence of solvency; instead, as Affirmative, I have just as much power as the Negative side to dictate a reasonable interpretation of the resolution that gives both sides fair ground. Thus, the burden of the Negative is to show that Roe v. Wade should be extended not ONLY for cases of rape, incest, or danger to health, but ALSO for intentional purposes. Contention 1: "Roe v. Wade" threatens the right to life. Life is a commonly prioritized right in American society, and the loss of life that an American fetus suffers during an abortion compromises the premise of life. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution mandates that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Since unborn children are not given due process, depriving them of their lives is simply unconstitutional. Furthermore, John Locke indicates in his social contract theory that all American citizens are entitled to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since a baby is no less deserving of these simple, fundamental, intrinsic entitlements than a 24-year-old adult or 87-year-old senior, the Negative has no place to say that abortion is a constitutional or moral choice. It is common for opponents of the resolution to point to the cliche "my body, my choice" as a symbol of decisions that women should be able to make about their bodies. Remember, however, that a human fetus that is unable to live because of an abortion loses his access to BILLIONS of choices, decisions, and transactions that he could have made if he had been born into society. Thus, the Affirmative side of this resolution upholds the pro-choice (Liberal) AND pro-life (Conservative) sides of the political spectrum. To uphold the sanctity of life and to balance the rights of a woman with those of a child, it is simply in the best interests of America and of the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. Contention 2: Roe v. Wade does not hold individuals accountable for their actions. Remember that, as Affirmative, I do not have to prove that abortions should be eliminated altogether. All I must prove is that the current policies of giving women the right to choose are flawed. Roe v. Wade imposes no burdens of money or community service on women who give up children. According to the Center for Disease Control, 28% of abortions are caused within one week after a woman has become intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. Essentially, permitting abortions as they are currently allowed dictates to American citizens that they should not be treated as ends in themselves. Abortion is a way of condoning heavy drinking, which leads people into unprotected sex and is one of the biggest reasons abortions happen in the first place. At the very least, Roe v. Wade could be replaced with a Supreme Court case that made abortions completely legal on the GROUNDS that the women completed community service or paid slightly higher taxes. This would serve as retribution for the termination of a human child, reminding the woman of her choice to do immoral. The Constitution mandates that those who are guilty of theft, murder, rape, or other high crimes shall be punished and held accountable for their actions. The United States criminal justice system must be held accountable if it puts to death an innocent person because he was not afforded access to due process. Almost equivalently, woman who have abortions should at least be mindful of their mark on society. Contention Three: Religions are fundamentally opposed to abortion. The 47.7% of people who identify themselves with a religious position have predispositions about life, justice, and values that must be respected. In the Christian bible, it is mandated: "Thou shalt not kill." Catholic traditions are fundamentally opposed to unprotected sex as a whole. John Boehner said in August of 2012 that "the Constitution must do a better job of recognizing the rights and positions of religious institutions in our American system". My plan of allowing two abortions in very serious cases is a perfect compromise between those who are always fundamentally opposed to abortion and those who are always fundamentally opposed to depriving women of the right to an abortion. I remind Negative of its burdens in today's round. Any definitions that he/she does not agree with must be stated in the next case and justified extremely clearly, or the judge should default to using my conditions. Thus, I affirm.