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

To begin his opening argument in R3, Pro maintains that risks cannot be a considerable factor in this debate because, "If the medical risks are high enough, the mother does not need fraternal consent. " However what Pro fails to realize is that there are ALWAYS risks associated with pregnancy. Therefore, by his standards, a mother never needs a father's consent because the risks of health problems are ALWAYS heightened with every pregnancy. To continue, Pro first claims that sex, by biological definition, is solely for the purpose of reproduction. The problem is that people do not only engage in sex for biological purposes. In other words, people don't solely engage in sex just to have children, so the reproductive correlation of sex is not the only aspect to be taken into consideration for this debate in terms of analysis or definitions. Therefore Pro's assertion that "Sex is like a mutual agreement between a man and a woman to reproduce" does not stand. Instead, sex is more like a mutual agreement to have intercourse with each other (usually with the aim of reaching climax) and that's it. Nowhere is it legally or even socially implied that reproduction is the goal of sexual intercourse. In most cases, it's not. Proof of this is the existence, promotion and high usage of of various forms of contraception. Pro says that if two consenting adults choose to have sex when the goal is not for reproduction, that they are engaging in this activity for the "wrong" reasons. Note that this is entirely subjective and rooted in opinion without any factual basis whatsoever. Pro's next point makes the claim, "Simply because the child has yet to be born does not make it any less of the father's child - biology says so! " Pro is ignoring the fact that the entity in question is not a CHILD but a FETUS. Thus the father has no rights nor responsibility to the fetus until the child is born. While Pro might wish to dismiss my premise regarding what is required of the father by law, he has failed to combat the very notion that abortion is about a woman's choice, and not man's property. Finally, Pro's whole dog analogy is completely misguided. First of all, he bases his entire argument around the premise that sex is solely for reproduction. He uses the "definition of science" which is not accurate, to say the least. While sex may scientifically lead to reproduction, it's simply NOT the only reason that people have sex. In order for his analogy to work, he would have to prove that the people in question (mother and father) had sex solely for the purpose of pregnancy. Since he cannot prove that people always have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then he cannot say that we (I'm using this pronoun for the purpose of the analogy) entered an agreement mutually to buy a pet. The couple may have decided to mutually have sex solely for the purpose of achieving orgasm - or a plethora of other reasons - all of which again are not only legally acceptable but morally as well (as indicated by social norms and standards). Second, assuming that I would actually accept the analogy that the dog represents the fetus in this case, the analogy still fails on the basis that a dog is a living entity outside of myself or my opponent. In other words, if we owned this dog, it can be argued that the dog has some rights, and subsequently we as pet owners have rights. However, my opponent agreed at the beginning of the debate that a fetus DOESN'T have rights. Until this fetus' life comes into fruition via childbirth (or consciousness, in my opinion), then it is merely an extension of the mother's body for which the father has absolutely no jurisdiction. Consider it this way: Say I have a female dog and Pro has a male dog. We agree to have our dogs mate and then share custody of the puppies, or rights over the puppies in the sense that we can share the profits of selling them, etc. This agreement is all fine and dandy, unless my dog doesn't produce the puppies at all (for whatever reason). In that case, Pro would have no rights: nothing lost, nothing gained. No puppies = no rights. Until the puppies are born, they are merely ideas of what may to come (to either share, have rights over, etc). If those ideas don't come into fruition, Pro is not entitled to anything. If he really wants his male dog to have puppies that badly, he can simply find another bitch to have them. To conclude his say in this debate, Pro asks the question: "If this dog is both truly ours and just happens to be residing in your home at the moment, what gives you the right to KILL it without by permission? To kill it without my permission is to say that I am somehow less of an owner than you. How will you answer this? " First, note that this question is unanswerable simply on the basis that using the analogy of the dog fails for numerous reasons. As I've pointed out, a dog is already a living thing separate from both myself and my opponent (i. e. the mother and the father). If the living dog already existed as a separate entity from myself and my opponent, we would both have rights and therefore I wouldn't have the right to kill the dog without Pro's permission. However, because a fetus isn't a separate living thing, it doesn't have any rights and likewise the father does not have any rights over it. 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.