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

I would like to point out a couple of glaring holes in my opponent's constructive speech before impacting and perhaps restating my own arguments, as it seems that some of them were misinterpreted. Let's start at the top of the flow. What this debate is really boiling down to is the definition of "life". The exact wording of either my opponent's definition or my definition doesn't matter; what matters is which definition, judge, you prefer. I think that my definition is better, because conception sets the foundation for an entity (human being) to come into existence. Once conception happens, there is some kind of evidence that a child is bound to exist. My opponent frequently likes to claim that since these babies aren't BORN, they don't have RIGHTS. I would like to argue that the amount of time they have been existence should not affect the amount of privileges they have. If you still don't support my definition of life, think of a slightly tangential but reasonable example. In the 2008 presidential election, Democrats didn't cheer as much the day that Barack Obama became president as they did when he was ELECTED president. The epiphany that Obama would soon be president was what instilled extreme emotions in people: contempt in Republicans and ecstasy in Democrats. It comes to show that life isn't necessarily determined by birth; it's determined by the very first steps that LEAD to birth, which I argue to be conception. In response to my opponent's first contention, he/she states that "children are routinely denied choices". Just because the status quo causes society to function in a particular way does not mean that it SHOULD function in that way. My opponent wants you to believe that the fact that children are parented automatically proves the morality of an abortion. I would argue that ageism is as serious of a discrimination as racism, homophobia, or even *sexism*, a concept my opponent tries to pull through and I will try to address later. My KEY response to my opponent's first contention is that giving a woman one choice whether or not to have an abortion undeniably determines the accessibility of a child to billions and billions of choices that he/she himself/herself would be able to make. My opponent's only real response to my first argument is that I referenced the due process clause irrelevantly. However, the right to life is a common trait in our American system. Just as women who have gotten themselves pregnant have the right to life, so should the children that they have as a result of unprotected sex. Reciprocity is the key to fairness; don't let my opponent pull anything that says otherwise. In response to my opponent's second contention, he/she says that it is not immoral for people to have sex. He/she remarks that intolerance of sexual relations is extremely rare and should not be a keystone of our American system. I agree with about 90% of that argument!! Sex is something that people should be able to take advantage of; it makes relationships stronger, blah blah blah. But women must understand the implications of UNPROTECTED sex, a key word of my 2nd contention that my opponent fails to consider in his/her refutation. There are ways to have sex without having "unnecessary" children: using contraceptives or birth control. Failure to use a condom is like failure to use a seatbelt while driving a race car or failure to wear a helmet while skiing down black-diamond slopes. Women need to make responsible decisions so that they don't feel the need to terminate the lives of children in the first place. If they happen to forget to wear a condom because of heavy drinking, lack of maturity, etc., they should be penalized. Matching punishments with actions is a keystone of our American system. There's a sub-contention between my opponent's refutations to my second and third contentions that essentially says that overturning Roe v. Wade is an act of sexism. I have 2 responses to this. Take whichever won you, judge, find more convincing: 1. It's not an act of sexism. The woman performs the abortion --- the woman should be punished. It's not the man performing the abortion. 2. Even if it is an act of sexism, in the Affirmative world we could overturn Roe v. Wade and still implement procedures that would allow couples to have abortions if BOTH of them were to pay fines or complete community service. Thus, if the retributions were to fall on both people involved in the unprotected sex and consequent abortion, my opponent's argument about sexism falls entirely. He/she must defend the Roe v. Wade case itself. In response to the rebuttal that my opponent made to my third contention, I concede that I can no longer impact my own argument here. My opponent's refutation is too strong for me to counter. Thus, let only my first and second contentions flow through today's round. Keep in mind that my opponent has so far made no unique arguments in opposition to the resolution today. He/she has only made refutations to my contentions, and of those, only one of them stands completely. At this point in the debate, judge, my opponent must prove that the benefits of overriding the right to life outweigh the costs (Contention 1). He/she must also prove that individuals not need be held accountable for their actions in specific cases, in this case, abortions. The 3 essential questions that I would ask my opponent in this round are: 1. Why is the choice of a woman any more important than the choice of a child? 2. Where and why does the right to life, a commonly accepted American principle, not apply? 3. Is it unethical at all to abort a human child and not suffer any kind of legal retribution for it? Please note that it is illegal to construct any new arguments beyond my opponent's last speech. This means that this speech is the first one for which new contentions cannot be counted. Finally, my opponent must prove that ROE V. WADE is justified, not just abortions as a whole. Thus, I affirm.