Abortion should continue to be legal here in the U.S.A (first thing to pop in my head)

To begin the affirmative would like to reject the definition given in the first negation. 1. Life is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." ( http://dictionary.reference.com...) 2. Prefer this counter definition because it's more direct and specific to the case. The Negative's definition allows for non-living things to be characterized as having life. This adds to the number of different lives that are currently being medically aborted, making the negative's definition extra topical and conditional. The negative could respond with allegations beyond the abortion of a human fetus. In order to maintain a good debate, I ask that the affirmative's definition be used because it narrows down things to organisms. The affirmative would now like to submit another definition. 1. The medical procedure of abortion is "to cause to bring forth (a fetus) from the uterus before the fetus is viable." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) 2. Viable means "capable of living." ( http://dictionary.reference.com...) These definitions prove that the fetuses being aborted are incapable of living, and therefore has no life. Prefer these definitions because their common and used by common people. Besides we are debating about something that affects common people. LEADERSHIP CONTENTION: The Negative's evidence references a global drop in abortion, not the abortion rate in the US specifically. Therefore that piece of information is irrelevant and should be excluded from the debate. Yes abortions have declined due to environmental factors not constituted in the negative's evidence such as health care availability, a number of people who do not abort because they are misinformed into believing that fetuses have lives, and are simply ashamed or forced into not getting abortions. Each year there are 1.2 million abortions in the US. According to ABA Family Legal Guide (http://public.findlaw.com...) The affirmative asks that this video is watched as a piece of evidence ( http://community.feministing.com... ) The negative stated by legalizing abortion, we would go against the trend in recent years which would alienate the rest of the world and therefore decreasing leadership. But abortion is currently legal and the impact of decreasing leadership is denied. Currently this debate is about the morality/legality of aborition. Your turn has been canceled. Case turn, having more people generally increases the military power which is a form of hard power. We have been using our hard power for years and we have seen proliferation and terrorism prevalent. It is now time we let our soft power lead by preventing poverty from existing and not discriminating: mainly against practices of abortion. Abortion does not violate any legal or moral matter. My opponent states that pro-life activist are bound to human value and that when people where killed by the Nazi party the entire world denounced that genocide. Abortion is not Genocide and does not kill anything. Early in this round I proved that fetuses are not living and therefore cannot be killed or be victims of Genocide. Leadership has been successfully defended and I would now ask the judges to extend the leadership advantages mentioned in the first round by AFF about preventing nuclear war. POVERTY ADVANTAGE: My partner said "For thousands of years, abortion was illegal or not used. Did we see the effects of food shortages? No, or at least not because of the lack of abortion." this information is true. My opponent did not state that people are becoming more and more specialized which means more and more people aren't farming. Instead, they are working in industries. When we have a limited number of farmers (and if abortion stops 1.2 million more people each year then is occurring in status quo) Food Shortage will be inevitable. Turn denied due to inability to provide morals. And if the moral issue you are referring to is killing, then that is also denied because I have made it clear that abortion does not involve killing. Justifying child murder is morally wrong, but abortion is not child murdering. The affirmative has successfully defend the poverty advantage and I ask the impacts mention by the affirmative case stating that solving for poverty is a moral obligation be pulled through to this round. Abortion is the only effective way to solve. ECONOMY/EDUCATION ADVANTAGE: No Contradictory Advantage: When the baby is born and LVING in poverty which is the case, they are in poverty and therefore uneducated. They aren't educated because they can't afford to go to college and wont make it to college. High School dropout rates are very high in poverty. They are also trapped and their children will be trapped. Again, the cycle of poverty is generational and every child born after the first is likely to be impoverished, thus meaning no positive contribution to the economy. Poverty is estimated to cost or economy 500 billion in lost productivity. The working poor class does not contribute to the economy, they lower the GDP making us a poorer nation. When we have more poor people we have higher taxes which means less consumer spending which also means a bad economy. More members in society would be good if each and every member was productive. More people would even be good, but only if we equally increased people in poverty and the rich. People in poverty are the ones needing abortion and having them if we prevent abortion from persisting then poor population only grows. That is not beneficial to the economy. The affirmative successfully defended the econ advantage and know asks to extend the impacts from above from the first round stating that solving for abortion prevents poverty. Poverty causes a depressed economy and risk econ collapse. Economy collapse cause Nuclear War. Abortion is the only effective way. COUNTERPLAN SOLVENCY: The counter plan alone will not succeed due to the .01 percent chance that condoms do not work, and due to the fact that not all females will put themselves in harms way to prevent pregnancy and therefore wont do birth control. Disadvantage: Huge amounts of plastic is not good for the environment. Since sex is something people do on an everyday bases and sometimes more than once, the world would experience huge plastic contamination and therefore global warming would occur faster than in the status quo. Perm do both: for those who feel abortion is immoral condoms and birth control is the way. Fit the counter plan into affirmative plan. Our plan would avoid the disad against the negative counter plan because people in our plan would still get abortions. NO MORAL obligation, The American people have been fooled into believing they do.