Abortion

Hi all! glad my opponent has picked this back up since it its quite an interesting topic. Just as a quick road map On case refutations A. Constitionality B. Safety C. Equality Off case refutations: T-Shell (Ill explain when I get there) A.Personhood B. The "thing" is a person c. The thing is not a person. Ok so first I"m just going to go briefly off case so lets begin! A. Constitutionality: 1.So lets look at this in a couple different lights. First off my opponent consistent that it is in fact the WOMANS CHOICE not any law maker or raspiest choice. By the Con side of the debate making abortion illegal they would be thus taking away the woman"s right to choice and giving it over to law makers. If my opponent tries to refute this at this point its some what of a mute point because she has already conceit that it should be the woman"s choice. 2. ok the Untied states had no other moral obligation other then to uphold the constituion. It is not a person it it is only bound by the social contract (the constitution) that its has created with its people. Also the constitution changes not because of what is morally fair and right but because of what makes logical sense and what would make sense for the us. An example of this is the 14th amendment and again id like you all to refer to roe vs. wade. 3. My opponent really just tried to side set this argument and really didn"t offer a refutation. nut if you don"t buy that i can simply respond to what she said with its the 14th amendment it encompasses any thing that a private citizen does and AGAIN i would like to point you to roe vs. wade which i would like to point out uses this argument specifically to support my side of the argument and since my opponent really hasn"t refuted this whatsoever it still stands. B. Safety 1. I don"t see how this is a slippery slop i have provided a clear link story my opponent hasn't been able to follow but ok here ill restate its clearer terms: If you make abortion illegal more babies will be born to woman who don"t want them. Hence they will ether a. put them up for adoption (flooding the system) or b. not take care of them and get them taken away (ether way flooding the system). She claims that by making abortion illegal ether would be less unwanted children to begin with well this simply isn"t true lets just look at the tim period when aortic was illegal the consequences were absolutely horrific 2. WOMAN CAN DIE IN CHILD BIRTH it isn"t just about pain its about death of an actual hymn life not an embryo which as we have established is not a human life (please refer to my off case argumentation for that definition.) C. Equality Ok so my opponents main rebuttal to this again is slipper slope which again ahem provide a clear link sorry but since i must defend my case i will restate it woman will still want abortions/ need abortions but do them in less safe environments hence causing more abortion related deaths 1. Its not that they should or shouldn"t it"d just a fact of life! its like drugs are illegal do people not do drugs? no they just do it illegally. 2. ok im not talking about what the US is bound to I"m saying that as i stated how the round should be weighed aka how the voters should vote is which team can show that they have provided the best benefits and most benefits to the United states citizens. Ok so now that I have sufficiently finnished defending my own case I will move on to my off case arguments Since my opponent forfeited the first round it is not her first chance to present new terms and definitions thus her editions fall and cannot be taken into account because sit requires to much ground of the pro side to make up. B. Personhood 1. I really do not want to have a debate over defintions but I will if I really must. A fetus is not a person it has been established time after time let me give you two facts to back me up: the dictionary: personhood noun -1.the state or fact of being a person. (and a person is a human being, whether an adult or child) 2.the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings (news flash fetuses can"t actually feel) - The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion declared that "person" did not include the unborn. 2. mostly their embryos an organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. 3. Ok ill address that when i see it. 4. Really? You can"t have it both ways cons ill explain when I get there C. The thing is s person. 1. Dude! Read the thing if your going to use it as evidence in 3 different court cases one that actually went to the supreme court stated that under the 14th amendment it isn"t person!!!! Roe vs. Wade biggest one please look at it. 2. It isn"t a person... literally look at any dictionary, science site, THE CONSTITUTION it will tell you it is not in fact a person no if ands or buts about it. D. The thing is not a person 1. Ok this isn"t really an argument? 2. again? 3. Ok I guess I can see what my opponent is trying to say but if you actually boil it down it doesn't make a lot of sense if we"ve established that the "thing" (embryo, fetus) isn"t actually in any shape to become a person at any near point you aren"t actually stealing power or preventing any due happiness and let me just reiterate DUE happiness its not just a random persons its a full person so were talking about if you enslave people or kill LIVING people. So this point again falls So back to what i said earlier about my opponent not sing able to have both arguments she need to choose one or the other it isn"t fair for her to have access to both its hypocritical and it shows the lack of logic behind her entire case if she can"t make a choice in her own mind why should you or i have to make it for her. It her job to weed out the good from the bad arguments and by presenting both and telling us to just address the one we "agree" with simply goes against the rules of parliamentary debate (which i stated this would be run as and she accepted). Thank you for reading, I hoped you enjoyed, and a great day!