The Breast Enhancement Society of Great Britain should enjoy charitable status

Sagging breasts happens to us all - except to those of us with very small breasts (1) (2). Contrary to my opponent's claims, small breasts don't sag. Gravity will affect those with heavier breasts, leaving the smaller breasts behind. The poor girls with diminutive bosoms certainly may not feel disadvantaged, since again, contrary to my opponent's claims the focus of a potential suitor's attention often lies between thigh and lower back level. (For proof of this, all one needs do is type into Google, 'breasts or butt - the great debate'. ) These girls may not necessarily be as disadvantaged as my opponent states, as they may be possessed of other assets. Moreover, the mention of suitors leads me to make a specific and essential rebuttal. My opponent has stated that the Breast Enhancement Society should be a charitable cause, that any potential donations should not be subject to tax deductions. Consider this carefully. If the Breast Enhancement Society should no longer have it's donations be subject to tax, this inevitably means that a larger amount of tax will need to be paid to cover the lost income. Every man (and woman) in the UK will, in short, be paying whatever fraction of a penny in the pound for breasts that they personally may not get to handle. That's right. Who in their right mind would willingly consent to pay extra taxes to support the development of breasts so some lucky husband or boyfriend might enjoy them, smiling smugly all the while because some other buggers had to pay for them? The situation becomes even more untenable when one considers that the enlargement of breasts can be achieved without surgery in many cases through the means mentioned in the sources of my previous round. Use of the contraceptive pill is one, and since that is free in this country the Breast Enhancement Society would not be required to fund this. An alternative is pregnancy. My opponent contends that a young lady with small breasts would be neglected because she would not meet a 'a rich man who is willing to pay for the surgery. ' Now, marriage often, though not always, involves children. In support of my flat-chested sisters, a prudent rich man would choose to marry a flat-chested woman, knowing full well that over the years her breasts would enlarge through child-rearing to be full, whereas a larger-breasted woman would enlarge even more through child-rearing to be heavy enough to begin to sag. A sensible long-term investment, as opposed to the man who trades in for a younger model which proves to be more costly to start up with than the last. (Child-rearing is of course obscenely expensive, but a poorer man may at least consider the investment a deferral of costs over a long-term period. In any case, I stand by the idea that he who gets to play, should get to pay. )My opponent concedes the proposed Society's failures to cover enhancement by reduction. I contend that this means the Society's name is misleading. Merely submitting a request for charitable status would result in a long, costly, bureaucratic process before ultimately the request was denied anyway due to the fallacious name. My opponent also concedes that a prevelance of grumpy, ill-dressed women will result from the actions of his proposed charity. In an attempt to mislead, my opponent attempts to contend that the dangers to impressionable young men result from lack of adequate support to large breasts that may or may not cause damage and mayhem in passing. This of course can be resolved by supportive bras. The dangers that cannot be resolved relate to men becoming distracted and getting rushes of blood to the head and occasionally walking into things. As for the launching of missiles, this has happened to me on a handful of separate occasions in a number of pubs across England. I contend that it remains a danger to the public. Finally, my opponent neglects the blatant disregard for males that this Society entails. Even setting aside the need for enhancement of other parts of the anatomy and focusing on 'breasts', I note that the name 'Breast Enhancement Society' does not involve 'Female' or 'Woman' in it's name. For this to be a fair description it should surely assist both aging women and men seeking transexual implants. Since the proposed set up of the Society neglects to address these needs, I contend that the Breast Enhancement Society is misleading, man-hating, unnecessary and above all a cunning ploy to foist breast enlargement costs on an unwitting public for the benefit of a greedy few. In short - vote CON! (1) . http://www.antibra.com...(2) . http://www.007b.com...;