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

=== I'm glad to see that my opponent concedes to the fact that a person and not a fetus has rights. That said, let us get back to the discussion regarding the rights of the father verses the rights of the mother. === I personally believe that fetuses have all the same rights as people, but for the sake of this debate I will concede that they don't. === Abortion is an issue about rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - just because the man who ejaculated into her says that she must is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights. === Pregnancy does always have medical risks, but the mother agreed to take those risks because she had sex with a man and knew their was a possibility of pregnancy. Sex is like a mutual agreement between a man and a woman to reproduce. Sex, under a biological definition, is for reproduction. It is not my fault if the money and father wish to have sex for wrong reasons, reasons outside of reproduction. This is where the sexual revolution has carried us, to a land where fathers have no rights over THEIR children. A father should not have to be denied of a child because the mother finds it "inconvenient". If the medical risks are high enough the mother does not need fraternal consent. The whole "medical risks" argument hold no water because in these cases a mother is allowed to abort without the father's permission. === The father doesn't have a say in abortion because abortion is about the woman's right to choose - not the man's right to property. Proof of this is the fact that our legal system does not require the father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born. === This isn't a debate of legalism. This is a debate of morality. The rights of the father transcend any type of legislation, because our rights transcend law. Simply because the child has yet to be born does not make it any less of the father's child, biology says so! I will illustrate this later when talking about the "dog in house analogy" === The real question is: Should I be able to DEMAND that Pro keep my dog in his house? ! To accept this analogy is to accept without question that I should be able to demand that Pro allow my dog to stay in his house. === Yes. When we entered an agreement to mutually buy a pet (symbolic of sex) we accepted that we each had to do our part to ensure that whatever came out of this purchase of an animal was indeed, MUTUAL. Since we both have rights over our dog (fetus) no one can exert his or her wishes over the other without a MUTUAL consensus. In lack of a MUTUAL consensus the dog-owner (mother) should have to stick to her end of the deal and preserve the dog because she entered a mutual agreement with the other dog-owner (father) to take care of this dog when they purchased it (had sex). Because sex, by DEFINITION IN SCIENCE, if for reproduction and reproduction only. Another 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? I yield back to my opponent, I like this debate. Good luck!