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

I will now post my final arguments === 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. === Read my definition of non-medical abortion. **Non-medical abortion-Also known as a social abortion, an abortion not undertaken for the fact that if the mother carries and births this child, she is in severe danger of dying.** A SEVERE danger of dying. Severe being defined as an elevated risk that is above the normal for a woman of the mother's age, weight, etc. The average risk of death during pregnancy is less than 1% in the United States. Some women, however, need medical abortions because of health reasons. We are talking about social abortions, or abortions not undertaken for medical reasons. === 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. === But that is what sex is. No matter how much people distort the meaning/purpose of sex its definition does not change. That is like saying the color blue will change is the definition of blue changes. Truth is not relative, their is an underlying truth to everything. A perfect example of this would be the statement "This child is three years old", no matter what CON says about this child his age will have not changed. So, sex is a biological function between a man and a woman to have children. And even if people don't have sex for that reason, they still understand that a consequence of sex is possible pregnancy. === 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. === So, the existence of contraceptives proves that sex is not just for biological reasons? Well, do bank alarms exist? Yes, they most certainly do. But does this mean that banks are built so that they can be robbed? No. Contraceptives were invited by people with no respect for the biological definition of sex and who just wanted to enjoy sex pleasures. The existence of a contraceptive doesn't change the meaning of sex. And I thought we were talking about abortion here? If a contraceptive were used properly than this wouldn't be an issue. Most people who receive abortions became pregnant through unprotected sex. When used properly condoms are 98% effective, when condoms (used properly) and spermicide are used properly the success rate is around 100%. People who take part in unprotected sex are basically saying "Baby, knock me up!" === 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. === So, there is mutual agreement to have sex. Then, after the child is born, the father has rights over it. The father has a right to produce a child. I father has a right to father a child. But he has no right over his FETUS while it is in its mother's body. Why not? There is no good answer to this question. By having sex the two agreed to share all reproductive rights because you can't reproduce with one. === 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). === See above arguments over the definition of sex. === 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. === 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? === 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. === But 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). An unborn puppy is just an idea? Really? A fetus is actually composed of living matter, matter that belongs to the father as much as it does to the mother. === 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. === BUT, 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". === Conclusion === In conclusion, CON has not proved that a father should have no right. To deny the father of this choice would be to deny him of his reproductive rights. Reproductive rights in this country has sexual preference, and is therefore unconstitutional under the Reed v. Reed case of 1973. It should be changed.