Abortion

"My opponent has offered specific examples of abortion. Even though I was actually anticipating on the idea of medical abortion, I will argue against the evidence anyway. " My opponent has now agreed to the scope of this debate being applied to abortion in general, despite the fact that he originally wanted to argue for medical abortion specifically. Since he has offered no objection and is responding to my points, I then assume that my opponent is taking upon himself the burden of Abortion in its totality. 1. ABORTIONS INFLICTED ON UNWILLING PEOPLE "Now, this technically can be classified as abortion. On the other hand, it could be classified as an act of assault as well. "Assault" can be performed by anyone as well as affecting anyone. There are many cases that are classified assault besides this. So this is not uncommon. " Whether or not abortion can also be classified as assault is irrelevant to this debate. As the Con position of the resolution "Abortion", I am obliged to offer arguments pertaining to how I am against Abortion. This is an act of abortion, I am against it. "In these cases, clearly the woman is unwilling to have an abortion anyway. So she does not intend on having an abortion. This is clearly an act of assault performed by the person who kicks her in the stomach. " I refer my opponent back to the medical definition I submitted in my first round. It clearly states that Abortion refers only to the act of losing the pregnancy, not how or why. It does not matter whether the mother has the intent of having the abortion performed, the abortion still occurs. The act of kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, or pushing her off a flight of stairs, with the intention of terminating the pregnancy is abortion, but it is also an act of assault. I am against this, I don't believe I can make my argument any simpler. 2. PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS My opponent has offered no response to my argument. SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS 3. My opponent has offered no response to my argument. 4. DANGEROUS ABORTIONS My opponent has offered no response to my argument. ********************************************************** My opponent ends his second round by speaking about immorality. Although his argument would be relevant if we were talking specifically about an intended abortion that did not fall under the 4 categories I listed above, it is regretfully irrelevant now. My opponent speaks on moral relativity and how he believes it negates my assertion that kicking a woman in the stomach to terminate her pregnancy may or may not be immoral. I find this to be a poor argument as he himself has provided the following definition: Immoral: -not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior As such, we can all agree that what is immoral or moral is determined by society or popularity. I ask the audience as well as my opponent a very simple question: "Is the act of kicking a woman in the stomach to terminate her pregnancy an immoral act? " The answer is yes. ********************************************************** My opponent then gives his argument about women who were raped. Women who report the rape or are sent to the hospital get Plan B as a procedural precaution. In the case that women do not report the rape, they have full access to Plan B over the counter. Termination of a pregnancy should be allowed for extremely strange circumstances, such as if a woman is held in some dungeon and raped over the course of an entire month, or such similar case where they have no access to emergency contraception and are already pregnant. ********************************************************** My opponent's other two arguments about teenage pregnancy and unprotected sex fall under the same category. Emergency contraception is readily available, and there really should be no need for abortion as a common, medical procedure dealing with irresponsibility. My opponent portrays medical abortion as the end-all-be-all to all unwanted pregnancy situations. The first line of defense is abstinence. There is plenty of porn on the internet and little to no need for sexual activity prior to the development of responsibility. The second line of defense is contraception. There are many forms of them available and they are all quite effective. In addition, there are natural ways to lessen the chance of pregnancy such as monitoring the menstrual cycle. It takes quite a bit of irresponsibility to bypass those. But even at this stage, we have Plan B, the morning-after-pill, which prevents pregnancy as a form of emergency contraception, effective for 72 hours. If we're dealing with a pair of people who want to have sex, without any sort of protection, who do not withdraw or use any method of pregnancy prevention, and who refuse to purchase Emergency Contraception the day after, then we should probably assume they want to be parents. There is no lack of information. There is no lack of teaching. There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy even well after the act of unprotected sex has occurred. There really is no excuse for requiring an abortion under any circumstances save for the most bizarre and uncommon ones. That having been said, heavily restricting abortion as a means of pregnancy termination will do far more good than harm. The assumption that there is always a last line of defense will only lead to more irresponsible behavior. Thus, by making emergency contraception the last line of defense, we move the line in the sand and the risks are reduced. ********************************************************** My opponent has ignored three of the four points I made in the first round. I remind my opponent that since he has offered no objection to my arguments regarding scope, he has agreed to the resolution of Abortion in general. Thus, his burden is to show that Abortion is acceptable in all circumstances. Until he does this, he has not met the burden. Thank you.