Alabama was right to illegalize the woman being on top during sexual encounters.

To begin, nowhere in old news nor in recent news can I find a law in Alabama banning women from being on top during sexual encounters- I read though my opponents previous article, but since it wasn't mentioned there, I simply did a search on google and did not find any records of this law. In his next argument, if my opponent would please provide evidence that this law does exist, it would be greatly appreciated, else forfeit of the burden of proof occur- this should be a simple task, I would just like to read any articles about this. Either way, whether or not this law actually does exist, for the sake of this debate I will assume that it does, in fact, exist, unless my opponent fails to bringing up a source affirming this laws existence. If that was confusing, basically I'm going to assume it exists for this round. >Contention 1- This Law is Unconstitutional Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 1 it states- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. <. https://www.law.cornell.edu...; This right here specifically says that states that, well, States, cannot make or enforce any law that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property- and consented sexual encounters fall under both life and liberty- our freedom to choose, which a State is not to interfere with. Under a United States Amendment, the US specifically bans the creation and the enforcement of this rule, therefore the United States Federal Government sides with Con that this one sex position shouldn't be banned. >Contention 2- Why doesn't the Government ban ALL sex? "If our dominant consideration is to prevent "penile fractures," well it's a fair bet that 100% of these injuries occur during some kind of sex. .. so why not ask the government to ban ALL sex? If it appears absurd to ban all sex, then perhaps it's also absurd to regulate other common sexual practices that are consensual? " I don't think I need to add anything more here. >Contention 3- How many penile fractures actually occur, and is this number even significant? For this argument, I looked into the source my opponent used above which highlights penile fractures in Brazil. It lists that there were a total of 44 suspected fractures over the course of 13 years. A mere forty-four in thirteen years! That's only about three and one third of a penile fracture every year! Compare this to how many people in this area of Brazil are having sex, and this is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of sexual encounters ending in a fractured penis. Seeing as there are next to 1 million people who reside in Campinas, Brazil <. http://population.mongabay.com...;, and chances are that around half that number are sexually active, and around half THAT number being male, the grand total would come out to around 3 fractured penises out of 250,000- that's two hundred fifty thousand- per year, which, as I stated earlier, is less than a fraction OF A FRACTION of one percent of sexual encounters- especially considering that each person likely has multiple encounters per year. This being the case, we can clearly see that penile fractures, while devastating, rarely occur, and therefore this rule is actually very unnecessary seeing as the only reason it exists is to curtail the almost nonexistent number of penile fractures. If the chance of getting a penile fracture is virtually zero, then why does a law exist to further reduce this number? >Contention 4- The Sheer Absurdity of Enforcement Exactly HOW is this law enforced? It's not like Alabama can just keep tabs on every citizen's sexual life- seeing as that would defy multiple laws on freedom and security- so HOW is a law about a specific sex position even enforced? Who figures this kind of thing out? Is some guy just gonna barge in on everybody while they're having sex and regulate their sexual encounter? Is that also a law, that all sex must be monitored? If not, I ask again, how is this law even enforced? And if it isn't enforced, then obviously why should this law even exist? In conclusion, I would like to refresh that I would like to see proof of this law in my opponents next round.