That abortion should not be a crime

Opposition, ladies and gentlemen. As a debater on the Affirmative side. First, I will provide rebuttals to the two arguments my opponent had made previously in round 1. Since my opponent had not made any point for his argument against the topic (as the rules assert), but rather give continuous rebuttals to my two points previously made in round 1. I will have to give rebuttals to two of his rebuttals in round 1. I hope next time my opponent will follow the rules and have a more structured debate layout. Firstly, his rebuttal to my first point on the social aspect: "Is abortion really that dangerous to other people for it to be called a crime? Really, what effect would it have on others that may endanger them? Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society? The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime." was: "This is, fundamentally, not true in the U.S. http://www.ncsl.org...... As you can see, there are "fetal homicide state laws." In essence, if a man hits a woman in the womb and kills the fetus, regardless of the stage, he will be tried for not one, but possibly two accounts of murder (depending on the mother's health). The fetus, under the law in this regard, is considered a living, human being and is granted the protections of humans. Another classic contradiction is if a fetus survives the abortion, it is then considered a human life and people have to try to save its life under the Born Alive Infants Act." I agree that if a man causes grievous bodily harm to a woman ( example provided by my opponent as seen above), he should be charged with the crime that he has made. But we are debating on whether abortion should be a crime, not whether someone should be charged because he hit a pregnant woman causing her to lose the foetus since the answer is obviously 'yes'. Furthermore, to persuade you that the first rebuttal that my opponent had made is erroneous, allow me to show you a quote from the opponent's first rebut: "The fetus, under the law in this regard, is considered a living, human being and is granted the protections of humans." My opponent stated that ONLY under the law he had provided, does killing a fetus is considered as killing a living. I don't live in the U.S, I live in Australia where abortion is not considered as feticide. Also, fetus - The immediate product of fertilization- is just a potential human being and not a real existing human being. Secondly, the opponent's rebuttal on my second point: "Women are bounded to so many ethnic beliefs..." in Round 1 is: "This is a complete mischaracterization of history. Men AND Women were and weren't seen as "tools" in the past. In the U.S., since its inception, women had the right to property. Women had the right to free speech. The only time the rules changed (except for leader rolls and voting) was in the contract of marriage. Both parties were legally bound to carry out certain responsibilities under law. Yes, the property DID, in fact, go to the man, but the man had to legally provide a standard of living suitable to the family. If he didn't, he would be flogged and jailed for failure to support his family. These are but a few examples that show the absurdity in my opponent's mischaracterization of history. And to the contrary, I would argue men were seen as tools to a higher degree than that of women. The vast majority of deaths in war? Men. Vast majority of bucket brigades? Men. Vast majority of wage slavery? Men. Most valued slaves? Able bodied men. Most homeless (even to this very day)? Men." Let me point out the flaws that the opponent had made. Starting with the opponent's claim that I mischaracterized history. The fact is that I had not mischaracterized history. women were and are still seen as tools to men. What are the ethnic beliefs that bounded a woman in history? That is a woman had to be married to a man, had to provide him with children to prolong his inheritance, had to obey her husband always and was seen as her husband's property. Does it not sound as slavery to you? not a relationship between a master and his female slave/maid? the idea was that if a man does not provide for his family, he would be flogged and jailed. But let think again, have you ever heard of such a thing from the past? no, and most people would not either. My opponent argued that men were seen as tools to a higher degree than that of a woman e.g vast majority of death in war. Allow me to point out the flaws in his argument. Who were in charge of a nation into war? Most certainly were not women. Men were in charge, and they wanted only men to go to war even though women asked to be soldiers as well. Woe to them, because of their chauvinism and sexist beliefs, they had voluntarily increased the death rate of their sex. Ladies and gentlemen, as a debater on the Affirmative side, I strongly believe that abortion should not be a crime. This debate has really been about why abortion should not be a crime. This is because the reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime. I will present my two arguments for the topic on an individual aspect. Firstly, most abortion happens because of unwanted sex. To be frank, most abortion happens because of rape. According to US National Library of Medicine Institutes of Health: "The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... When a man is raped, he may suffer mental damage. But when a woman is raped, she will not just suffer permanent mental damage but also body damage if she is unluckily got pregnant. For instance, a child of 15 years old got raped and is diagnosed to be pregnant, she can have the right to get an abortion because the unwanted pregnancy is endangering her life. At 15 years old, she can not have the life experience motherhood needs, nor the physical ability to carry out a difficult labor. Even a doctor- someone who has to oblige laws and regulations- would advise her to get an abortion. Would you argue that an unborn fetus, not yet a real human being, should be kept despite that its existence will no doubt kill or greatly damage its mother- a very real, living human being-? Technically speaking, it is an act of negligence. Because giving birth would jeopardize the 15 years-old girl's life, and if you still insist that she should not have an abortion anyway- because you believe abortion is a crime- knowing the risk, then you are feigning ignorance to that girl's well-being. Secondly, not every pregnancy is equal. Some people cannot give birth to a child because of their limited physical ability and/or the fetus is defected. If a woman cannot give birth and survive the process of giving birth. Then she is advised by the doctor to get an abortion to avoid putting herself at risk. If abortion was a crime, then she would be criminalized just because she does not want to risk her life. Furthermore, when a fetus is diagnosed as being defected because of certain diseases. The pregnant woman is suggested to getting an abortion. This is because of the safety of the society and the fetus itself. Let me clarify why. The Darwin's Theory of Evolution asserts that the Natural Selection process continuously filtering out the bad genes and defective genes in order to achieve a more improved human race. If a defected fetus is kept and born into the world, the fetus is already developed into a child who is carrying a bad pool of genes waiting to be released into our civilization, which will halt the formation of a more improved human race. But this is not just about the safety of society, but also the safety of the defected fetus as well. What is the purpose of being born? It is to be happy and to have a well-lived life. Most defected fetus being born into children often have difficulty functioning. They are also constantly in pain due to the diseases that were already imprinted on them since they were in the womb. They cannot have a life worth living because they are not happy or not aware of living. They will not be grateful that their parents wanted them to live. Most defected children die young, and when they do die, they are not just a fetus with no understanding of their environment and no emotion. They will die knowing they should not have to suffer this long just to die in the end. Their families also will be absolutely devastated, because now that they have memories of their children, it is more painful for them to die as a human being than die as a fetus. Opposition, ladies, and gentlemen. Though my opponent may try to convince you otherwise. With these points in mind, indubitably abortion should not be a crime. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules: 3 rounds on each side. Round 1- Affirmative: Give the definition of the topic and state the first two main points on the social aspect. Negative: Give two rebuttals to the two points that were made by Affirmative debater in Round 1. Then give two points against the topic on the social aspect. Round 2- Affirmative- rebuttals then two points on the individual aspect of his/her argument. Negative- Rebuttals then two points on individual aspect of his/her argument. Round 3- Affirmative: Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case of his/her argument. Negative- Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case for his/her argument. ********************************************************************* This is merely a debate, do not be personal. Matter, Method and Manner should be taken into consider when voting for a winner.