In regards to non-medical abortions, fraternal consent should be required at the national level.

[ Re: Pregnancy Risks ] Just because the risks associated with the average pregnancy may not fall under the category of a "medical emergency," does not mean that other health concerns are not elevated in general in association with pregnancy. In other words, I agree that this debate is discussing so-called social abortions; however, that does not disregard the heightened medical concerns for a pregnant woman regardless of whether or not they are emergencies. The point is that a pregnant woman is always at risk and must adjust her lifestyle as such. [ Re: The Biological Definition of Sex ] In attempt to define sex as solely a means of reproduction, Pro attempts to use a color analogy. He says, "That is like saying the color blue will change as the definition of blue changes. Truth is not relative, their is an underlying truth to everything. " However, Pro is putting forth fallacious argumentation in trying to prove his point. For instance, it is true that orange is derivative of the color red. Similarly, it is true that orange is derivative of the color yellow. In other words, "The color orange derives from the color red" and "The color orange derives from the color yellow" are both true statements. Similarly, while it is true to say that people engage in sexual activity for the purpose of reproduction, it is also true to say that people engage in sex - even unprotected sex - for other reasons, including physical pleasure. Thus if people have sex for reasons other than reproduction, they may accept that pregnancy is a possible consequence; however, they may not accept that they be required to see that pregnancy through to childbirth. With that said, keep in mind that this debate is not about the morality of abortion but whether or not a woman should be prohibited to have an abortion solely based on the father's opinion. Because abortion is legal - and not the subject of this debate - we must accept that abortion is an alternative for those who get pregnant and consider abortion a viable option. [ Re: Contraceptives ] Pro writes, "Contraceptives were invited by people with no respect for the biological definition of sex and who just wanted to enjoy sex pleasures. " Note the fact that Pro is implementing his OPINION of sex and what he thinks sex should be for. Yes, I agree that contraceptives are for those who want to enjoy the physical pleasures of sex in a responsible way (to not transmit disease or result in an unwanted pregnancy). However to say that people who use contraceptives are "disrespecting" sex is merely Pro's conservative opinion with no factual basis. He is trying to impose his morality in a debate which is supposed to be about empirical facts. Anyway, Pro continues to say that people who take part in unprotected sex are basically saying, "Knock me up! " I have a few counters to that. First, a lot of people rely on female birth control i. e. The Pill. However, the pill can be very ineffective in females who take other medication (which may negate the effects of the pill) and are not as effective as condoms in general. Additionally, the supreme court judgment of Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion made abortion an acceptable legal option in the United States, even if one was irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex. Therefore, even if one WAS inviting the consequence of pregnancy, this debate is once again not about whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether or not a male has any right to force a woman to carry a child to term. So, I can just as easily say to Pro that if a man truly wanted a woman to have his baby, he could have / should have had sex only in a legal or spiritual commitment such as marriage where both parties agreed to have a baby should pregnancy be the consequence of their actions. [ Re: Fetus vs. Child ] Pro asks why a father has rights to a child and not to a fetus. This is pretty basic logic. Rights in this case go along with responsibilities. When a child is a fetus, the father has no responsibilities (they all lie with the mother whom is carrying it). When the child becomes a child, the child has needs outside of the mother's own biological cavities and thus the father as a co-parent has the responsibility to help provide for that child. While the fetus is inside of the mother, all of the rights AND responsibilities are that of the mother's. The father is essentially useless once fertilization occurs (and even that happens as a result of his ejaculated sperm; the father doesn't do anything himself to fertilize the egg - that all happens within the mother's body). Pro says, "By having sex the two agreed to share all reproductive rights because you can't reproduce with one. " However, once again the two haven't agreed to share all reproductive RESPONSIBILITIES, meaning the rights here reside with the mother until childbirth. When a woman is pregnant, she cannot eat fish, smoke, drink alcohol, eat hot dogs, drink caffeine, etc etc etc. So, what Pro is saying is that the mother and father's reproductive rights should be EQUAL; however, there is nothing to support this. The fetus resides within the WOMAN'S body. She is the one with all of the responsibility. She is the one with all of the risk. She is the one who gets morning sickness, she is the one whose responsibility it is to seek medical attention (sonograms, the gynecologist, etc. ), she is the one who gains weight and other body defects, she is the one who *GIVES BIRTH* and she is the one on which the fetus RELIES for SURVIVAL, etc. Thus it only makes sense that the RIGHTS of the fetus also lie with the mother - not the father. This all changes once the child is born. [ Re: Dog Analogy ] Pro says, "The 'house' in the analogy represents the mother's body. And why should it matter? Just because it lives in your "house" doesn't make me any less of an owner? " First of all, it's amusing how the house has come to represent the mother, when originally the house represented the father (Pro said in R2: If i had your dog in MY house, would I be able to do with it whatever I'd like? ). Anyway, Pro's question of whether or not the dog being in my house making him any less of an owner is irrelevant. He has ignored my entire argument, which has been that the dog cannot represent the fetus because a dog is a living entity outside of myself, whereas a fetus is not a living entity outside of the mother. My argument on fetus vs. child explains how the mother carries with her all of the rights until the child is born because she in turn bears all of the responsibilities until that point as well. You cannot make the same comparison with a dog. [ Re: Dog Analogy II ] "If your dog did become pregnant with the puppies and you decided to have a "puppy abortion" that would be in clear violation of the contract because it would violate my right over those puppies (which I have via the contract, sex). " I knew Pro would try this argument. However, it clearly doesn't work -- There is no contract or legal obligation as a result of sexual intercourse. If a woman was hired to be a surrogate mother, and upon childbirth did not want to give up the child, she would be under violation of a reproductive contract. However the sex act itself does not imply a contract. [ Re: Equal Rights ] I said: At best, the mother and the father have equal rights over the fetus. The debate then shifts to the obvious necessity of the mother's body, for which it becomes clear that the father has NO right. The mother's rights then trump the father's 2:1 thus making the resolution obsolete. Pro then said: We've already said in the resolution that the mother's health (and therefore body) does not have a bearing because this is a "social abortion. " Uh. .. what? What does non-medical emergencies have to do with the fact that a man has no right over a woman's body? [ Conclusion ] The resolution endorses slavery.