Abortion

No worries...this is a sensitive topic and some people tend to feel a certain way. Let's get started ladies and gentlemen R3 ARG1 "One thing that needs to be made clear regarding abortions in cases of rape is that they are very slim in numbers. Out of all the abortions in the nation, according to a study, only 1% of them were due to rape/incest. One common thing that pro-choice people will do is take this very marginal case of abortions, and apply that to all the other cases that there are (which are much more numerous), using this as an excuse to make all of the other cases acceptable. When an argument is made that abortion is wrong, almost every time the pro-choice side says "but what about in cases of rape or incest?" This is faulty thinking. If my opponent and I can agree (still assuming his assumed position in this debate, not his actual opinion) that all of the other cases of abortion are bad, then we can continue to discuss rape/incest cases." Sure, it is a very small number, but just remember, it is still a number that is used in determining abortions. It may be small at this current moment, but it is still a percentage in this study. This percentage could keep increasing and increasing. If we don't do anything now, the rape rates will increase. That's a fact, but when this number rises and keeps growing because of rape, shouldn't we provide support? Give these victims a way to deal. Because 44% of rape victims are under 18, which is labeled as a child. A young child being forced to have a child, without any financial care, would be a wicked thing. Have a child suffering from this abuse, and taking care of a child that was not at their own will. Looking how rape is increasing more and more, the percentage will go up. Think about the future. A book from A Thousand Splendid Suns says how these children and their babies are ridiculed, and called harami's, aka bastard child. As Americans, we have this bias too. Parents would have to say their child was an accident, making them even more depressed. Yes, the percentage is low now. But the future will determine how we reacted in the past. Sure judges can think of the present, but if you want to see this world succeed, think of the future R3 ARG2 "My opponent is correct in that scientists have no clear way of discovering when the actual baby begins development. However, this is aside from when I believe that human life begins. This is not a religious interpretation, for secular reasons I believe that the human life begins upon conception, regardless of whether or not it has developed into a baby yet. If my opponent is arguing that the baby does not become a human until it exits the birth canal and takes its first breath, I would like him to consider this: if you were to take a fully-formed baby that was just about to exit the womb and stab them in the head with a knife, that baby was not a person? You didn't kill another human being? If my opponent is trying to define the terms on which they become a person based on convenience, that is the nature of evil. Life begins upon conception." My opponent says scientist can not define where life starts. I think that is fair point and I respect the fact he disregards religious perspectives because the Church says life starts from conception. However the Bible has bias so it's best we don't use this source. The best and most reliable thing for this debate would be that we can agree on is that life officially starts in the actual birth. I'm going to use this for my next rebuttal. The claim about a knife in the baby is just not true. This is used in third world country where medicine is not available. We are talking about the U.S here folks, where most if not all people go to the hospital. In clinic abortions are safe and effective. They work 99/100 times. They don't cause any pain to the baby in fact the vacuum procedure does not damage the baby at all. Anyway, there are treatments that get rid of the embryo which is not considered life in U.S law, so if there are procedures that do that, the claim is illegitimate SOURCE:https://www.plannedparenthood.org... R3 ARG 3 "Regarding the arguments on America's views on abortion, I never said that this debate would be about whether abortion should be illegal or not, I am simply arguing against abortion itself. Also, if we were talking about it becoming illegal, I don't think that Trump himself would get the final say, as that's just not how our economy works. That would be up to the American population to decide. (By the way, this is where I feel that I may have been a bit rude. By saying that I didn't care, that could have been taken the wrong way. I just explained what I meant by that.)" I completely understand why you may think this, but my ARG1 Claim was that if abortion were to be illegal, it would cause a chilling effect and cause social tension. I am just stating an impact that would happen if abortion were to be illegal, which is the question for this debate, Should Abortion be Illegal? I was just stating an impact, no rudeness taken. Also the political system does work like that. The house creates a bill and if it goes through the entire congress it gets put on the presidents desk to veto or pass the bill. There is a lot of evidence that proves Trump is against abortion, so if an illegal abortion bill where to pass, he would vote. I am saying the impact would cause social disorder through the country, which would ruin its image to the world with the protests. I would like to ask CON for evidence that Trump would not pass a bill making abortion illegal so i can respond because based off his views, he is against it. R3 ARG 4, EXT TECHNIQUE DA "Taking a brief step back to the rape cases, I do agree with my opponent in that the final decision is the woman's. However, because that is still a human being, my opinion is that it should not be killed, regardless of the way it was put there. Let's take a moment and step away from the ethical side of this debate and look at the different ways abortions are performed. Although there are many different techniques, many of them involve the dismemberment of the baby. The body is cut into pieces. If the head is too big, it is crushed in order to remove it. In other techniques, the skull is punctured and the contents drained out before pulling the dead baby out." Why should federal government control women's bodies. Women do what is right for them. They are not the women deciding, so they should not have any federal control, when federal control is already a very hot topic. The women is in control of the body, not the government. So therefore, the federal government should not play a role in deciding abortions, when they already in the hot seat for too much control in government. For your techniques argument, please read ARG @ Also your source is prolife.org. This source should NOT be used. It clearly has bias in it with no backing up evidence to support this. Prolife has bias so judge take that into consideration CONCLUDE Judges should not vote on a claim of false religious claims. I did not make any false claims. I just said don't use it. CON is doing a good job of not using religious sources. However judges vote PRO due to obvious impacts with passing abortion, which CON has been weak. My case has outweighed, judges vote PRO because PRO outweighs CON cases and is weak with impact. SIDE NOTE: Impact is referring to what would happen if abortion where to pass and if it would pass I am anxiously waiting my opponents arguments :)