(plz read carefully, I advocate abortion) To improve abortion laws, Roe v Wade should be repealed.

This debate is not about whether Roe V Wade is good or bad for any group of people. This debate is about whether abortion laws will now be less hindered if Roe V Wade is reversed (not overturned). I argue that unneccesary hinderances are put on women b/c of Roe V Wade. I advocate that Roe V Wade makes abortions more restrictive than is neccesary. I don't care how you all vote but if you make comments please comment based on this and not the inherent goodness of babies and life. That is not what we are debating. For all we care, abortion is murder but Roe V Wade still makes it harder to get than it would w/o. In regards to the comments though i'll cross apply this. Going around claiming that something is human doesn't make it so. please present evidence so I can take your claim seriously. defining what is human is an age old question and it is NOT common knowledge. this applies to the debate as the claim is made that it is sick to call at third trimester fetus a nonhuman as it will develop into one. The same reasoning is why people think first term abortions are wrong. It will develop into a human. This is also why I understand how people who are against abortion feel as if they truly think one is commiting murder by this, then they should be trying to stop abortion from happening. I advocate that instead of letting some collection of 9 old judges determine what is human, we let the medical community determine when Humanity begins. Roe V Wade undermines this as the Court determines when life begins. I wouldn't trust the court to determine whether masturbation or circumcision is bad. That isn't their specialty. Trust the specialists to know when humanity begins. The argument was made that the medical commnity originally decided when life began. Even if this is so, it is bad for 9 old judges to now decide when humanity begins. The medical community could change its views while the court can't. The court is telling us, based on doctor's viewpoints, that humanity begins after 6 months but this could change. The definition of what makes us human changes. Heck, the language of Roe V Wade claims this as regulation is based on when the fetus is viable w/ medical care. As medical care changes so does the time we can regulate abortions. The medical community and courts are not currently in synch. This is because the court, and not doctors, has absolute determination on when a humanity begins. Repealing Roe V Wade doesn;t mean abortion is now illegal. It would still be legal as there is no law against it. I'm advocating repeal one law and make it more liberal. That is my plan. This is a some or more argument. We don't get rid of all abortion by repealing RVW. We get more abortion by making the text more liberal. Your definition does state a reversal in the meaning but its "or reverse" not and or neccesarily reverse. Repeal, for this debate, means to withdraw. I apologize that this closing argument is less structured than the others. I am running short on time and my keyboard got weird (spilled schnapps) so it takes awhile to type. But my simple argument is that we can make abortion laws more liberal by withdrawing/repealing Roe V Wade. We cannot do certain acts with it up there. If we judge the success of the plan based on the most abortions allowed, repealing and changing Roe V Wade lets us have more unrestricted abortions.