To be announced.

Reproduction is essential to human life; without offspring, our species would die off. Many people even feel that having children is a fundamental right. Although there has been some controversy regarding issues such as in vitro fertilization, for example, the topic of this debate is very clear: it states that people should never have children. This applies to all people, including some of the best parents out there. The word 'never' is also really final, and implies that my opponent's suggestion of not having children for the next 10 years does not coinside with the agreed upon resolution. But before I get into arguing my opponent's case, first I would like to discuss my reasoning as to why people should be allowed to have children. First, why do people WANT to have children? Afterall, it is a very painful, expensive, challenging and stressful experience. However parenting can also be very rewarding; some people find joy and fulfilment through their children and devote their entire lives to taking good care of them. People enjoy feeling needed, and when you have a child, you become the center of their universe - they are little people that you need to love, care for, look after and teach. Some people simply want children to carry on their legacy and/or family name, or simply because they deem it 'taking the next step' after marriage as society suggests is the "right" thing to do. Whatever the reason, people have the right to have children. As a species we've been doing it for millions of years. To suddenly take away that right would turn the framework of humanity topsy turvy. For one thing, people ENJOY having children. Consider the testimonies from mothes who have never felt anything so amazing as their child moving around inside of them, or seeing their baby for the first time upon giving birth. These feelings are not exclusive to already existing parents, but should be a rite of passage for future mothers and fathers who wish to give the gift of life. Some people believe that the entire purpose for human existence is to perpetuate the species or experience parenthood (give life). If these are people's religious and spiritual views, who is Pro to disregard their beliefs? Further, I would like to discuss the reality that regardless of whether or not people have children, people WILL get pregnant. Proof lies within the fact that there are so many unwanted or unexpected pregnancies today, even with awareness regarding birth control and planned parenting. Abstinence is not a favorable way of life for most of humanity, and because "accidents happen," it is logical to conclude that women will continue to get pregnant. However if people should never have children, what does Pro suggest we do with the unborn fetuses? Clearly the only option is abortion; however, this solution is not feasible given the moral implications. Millions of people in this world vehemently disagree with abortion. Not only that, but mandating abortion would be a complete violation of human rights. It would also infringe upon people's right to practice their religion freely. Because Christian doctrine deems abortion to be immoral, forcing one to undergo such a procedure would be completely unconstitutional and therefore unlawful for practicing theists in America alone. Next I'd like to respond to my opponent's sole contention regarding why people should never have children. He mentions overpopulation as the main factor, but I disagree that this is reason enough to conclude such a finite solution. For one thing, if everyone on planet earth stopped having children starting today, within a little over a century the whole globe would be void of all humanity. That doesn't sound too promising. Another thing to keep in mind is that there are alternatives or other solutions other than wiping out entire generations of human existence (and who knows what kind of psychological and/or other impacts that would have on our species). Currently billions of dollars are being spent on medical research that seek to sustain life. We're developing medicines, vaccinations, looking to prevent sickness, etc. If overpopulation is such a problem, why not scrap some of these policies (not to mention it'll save us some money) that enables an individual to live a longer life? In 1900 the average lifespan was 40 years. A hundred years later, that number increased by over 30 years. Thus older people are now draining our resources and contributing to pollution output all while contributing very little to society. Now I'm not suggesting that we wipe out all of the elderly; however, this idea does seem more logical than preventing more people from being born... ever. This is just one solution of many that is more favorable than my opponent's suggestion. My opponent's suggestion is not logical in the least. Let's take the example of an organization like the United Nations. Its mission is to sustain peace; however, if wars were fought and people died, that would only improve the problem of overpopulation, right? So why not just disassemble the UN and let some ballsy nations duke it out? The countries that get wiped out can be built up so the remainder of the population can expand. This is nothing more than Social Darwinism in today's modern day world. ... But enough of that. The fact of the matter is that less drastic measures can be taken to improve current world conditions. For instance, more countries can follow in China's footsteps in the sense that we can attempt to limit the number of children people have with incentives (money). A possible solution to the population problem is to impose a hefty tax for those who choose to have more than 2 children per family. Granted this solution may lead to abortion and/or unwanted children; however, it would at least be somewhat effective in the sense that people would be more cautious regarding safe sex. It is also a more fair alternative to what my opponent has suggested: forbid reproduction all-together. "Since only women can give birth, and since they must give birth to two at least offspring in order to replace the previous generation, limiting the average number of child births per woman to less than 2 will result in a definite decrease in population. This may be achieved by producing free birth control devices and procedures world wide, making them easily available, and encouraging their use through media, cultural and religious pressure, and even government regulation" [1]. Other solutions to the problem include investing in alternatives to resources such as solar energy, or spending more money on scientific research that can possibly come up with ways to combat the problems facing the world today via overpopulation. For instance new measures need to be taken in terms of getting rid of pollution, not to mention expansion on the concepts of reusing, reducing and recycling. So alright so I think I'll stop here for now (I'm quickly running out of characters). To conclude R1, I'd like to point out that thus far in the debate I have established why people want to have children, why it is their right to have children, why indicating that people should never have children would be wrong, and I've included some other more fair solutions to the problem of overpopulation. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal -- this should be an interesting debate. ------------------------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.associatedcontent.com...