Question: Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Birth control is a "free will" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of "free-will sexual intercourse" and "free-will reproductive suppression" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.

Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Arguments extended to next round.

Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Arguments left unchallenged as per opponent forfeiture. Von Con please.

Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of "the pill" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow!

Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: Yes but as I said in the last round teenagers will contiue to use birth control pills to not get in trouble and they think they will be invincible and will be untouchable. Soon their body will be immune to the pills and will have the child btu teenagers aren't ready for birth control pills. If teenager drink underage then how can you believe they will overuse the birth control pills?

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: I would greatly appreciate some proof that the pill can treat cancer. I could not find proof of such a claim but instead found studies that showed it could be linked to breast cancer and cervical cancer in women. [1]Second, I've already expressed the fact that a woman can simply practice abstinance. There are a wide variety of alternative methods to the pill, such as IUDs, condoms, and surgery. Some of these are just as effective as the pill.Why should it be an insurance company's responsibility to look after a woman's womb in such a way? It is her personal responsibility to take care of that issue, not her insurance company. In the case of rape, providing birth control would apply to a large range of women and not just rape victims. They could also use one of the alternative methods mentioned above.Again for the Viagra case, my opponent's claim is inane. It is the company's right to choose what they cover and what they don't. Viagra actually treats a legitimate health problem, unlike my opponent's stark belief that birth control somehow prevents cancer. If it were proven that the pill prevents cancer by a reputable institution, then the argument might have more of a base.The final claim again is ludicrous to me considering that not providing birth control would in no way cause women to "suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world." Unless my opponent is referring to the pain of childbirth (which is uncontrollable for an insurance company), her statement has no support or reasoning behind it.1- http://www.cancer.gov...;

Title: Abortion Content: " 1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning." Mosquitos have hearts too. Are you intending to be consistent? " 2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. " Condoms and other birth control methods are imperfect, and the day after pill argument assumes a false premise, because by the time you know an egg has been fertilized, it's already too late. The primary use of such a pill is as a last resort in the event of a bout of unprotected sex resulting from negligience or rape. It is, as a practical matter, useless for dealing with used but failed birth control methods. Further, the existence of alternative solutions is not sufficient to establish that something should be illegal. "3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions" Votes are among the worst ways of deciding things, the existence of a mob that believes x is correct is not sufficient to establish that it IS correct. I'm sure if you polled Germans about Hitler back when he was in power- oh wait, that's how he got in power. :D Also, polls conflict on the question, especially when you change the wording about. " 4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception." Fish feel pain too. Yet I still eat them. The sole purpose of the law is the protection of entities which happen to have rights. Rights are the limits of what behavior is proper toward a rational entity, if you violate them toward such an entity without them first violating yours, you increase the chance of them violating yours. This is the sole basis for rights. Fetuses, however, are not such an entity- they have not yet developed rationality. Neither, I should note, have some infants- it is not certain when rationality develops, but, evidence points to it being sometime after birth. Also, even were it true that fetuses were rational, the fact remains that if they are in your womb without permission, they are violating your rights- they are trespassing on your private property. Thus, the other condition on which rights are based (reciprocity) is violated. " I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent" No holds are barred. You may bring up anything at any time, and so shall I :D.

Title: Birth control Content: Will you please use a bible that is written in English? Or translate it? I can't read the Latin. No the side effects are not uncommon. Yes they do have high failure rates. You can alos easily screw up taking it. If you forget to take it, or you take the pills in the wrong order, or you are taking a another medication that interferes with it. It has been scientifically proven that guys are more attracted to girls who are fertile, and not on birth control. (Contraception: Why not 3rd edition) The birth control pill has an 8 percent failure rate with perfect use. The condom has a 17 percent failure. "In the Consumer's Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs it also states that "Early-age use of the pill carries a greater risk of breast cancer, of developing larger tumors and having a worse prognosis." (Chastity.com) Condoms cause cancer as well " "BERLIN (Reuters) - Most condoms contain a cancer-causing chemical and their manufacture should be subject to greater quality control, a German scientific research institute said Friday. The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, said it found the carcinogen N-Nitrosamine present in 29 of 32 types of condoms it tested in simulated conditions. "N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances," the study's authors said. "There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem." The carcinogen is thought to be present in a substance used to improve condom elasticity. When the rubber material comes in contact with human bodily fluids, it can release traces of N-Nitrosamine, the study said. Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber contraceptives based on results of the study because N-Nitrosamine does not present an immediate health danger. But Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that daily condom use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than levels naturally present in food." (Chastity.com) Condoms do not protect against HPV, the most commonly contracted STD: http://chastity.com... My source for that punishment is the bible. Why do you think that NFP couples having low divorce rate and contracepting couples having high divorce rates is a coincidence? Studies have proven it to be true, and not a coincidence. http://chastity.com... NFP has a below one percent effectiveness rate. You are not going to find any type of bc more effective. I forgot to mention earlier but most forms of contraception are also abortifacient. You can't logically say that they prevent abortions, when they cause them. "When a woman ovulates, she can become pregnant. However, the Pill has mechanisms that can cause an abortion before a woman knows that she has conceived. If a sperm does fertilize the egg, the newly conceived baby (zygote) may be transported more slowly through the fallopian tubes because of how they have been altered by the Pill. Thus, the child may not reach the uterus, where he or she needs to implant and receive nourishment for the next nine months. Because the fallopian tubes are changed, the baby may accidentally implant there, causing an ectopic or "tubal" pregnancy, which is fatal to the baby, and can also be life-threatening for the mother. If the baby is able to travel safely to the uterus, he or she may not be well received. One reason for this is that the chemicals in the Pill thin out the lining of the woman's uterus (the endometrium).[10] As a result, the baby may not be able to implant. At other times the child will attach to the wall, but he or she will be unable to survive because the normally thick and healthy uterine wall has shriveled and is therefore unable to nourish the baby. The Pill also impacts the woman's progesterone level. This causes the lining of the uterus to break down and eventually shed as it would in a menstrual cycle, further denying the baby's attempt to implant. Many doctors are concerned about the fact that women often are not informed that the birth control pill can cause an abortion as well as prevent pregnancy. One medical journal declared, "If any mechanism of any OC [Oral Contraceptive] violates the morals of any particular woman, the failure of the physician or care provider to disclose this information would effectively eliminate the likelihood that the woman's consent was truly informed and would seriously jeopardize her autonomy. Furthermore, there is a potential for negative psychological impact on women who believe human life begins at fertilization, who have not been given informed consent about OCs, and who later learn of the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs. The responses to this could include disappointment, anger, guilt, sadness, rage, depression, or a sense of having been violated by the provider." (Chastity.com)

Title: Women Have The Right to Contraceptives Content: Thank you, Con. I. Addressing Counter-Arguments/Rebuttals "Everyone acknowledges that having sex has risks, such as protection breaking, but you should go into the action accepting that it may happen, and willing to accept the consequences. If you were worried about getting pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Everyone knows that condoms break. That doesn't make birth control a 'basic human right,' as Pro stated in Round 1. Keep in mind that this is the terminology that Pro used, as I will be addressing it shortly." Con is essentially stating in the above rebuttal that sex should be strictly procreative; that if the couple knew the risk of pregnancy and didn't want to have a baby, that having sex should not be an option to begin with. This is of course ignoring the kinds of sex a couple may have that are not physically able to procreate. To think of the birth of a child as a "consequence" that couples must deal with is to present the idea as though it is a burden to the family, which is proving the thesis statement that childbirth can be painful and can be a burden on the family; children are expensive to take care of and not everyone has the money to afford taking care of them. Con is right, condoms breaking doesn't make birth control a human right, what it means is that if people intend to have sex in a manner that is not procreative, and it is anatomically possible for such partners to reproduce, they should have access to birth control/contraceptives to nullify and slim the chances. The point, plan and simple, is that sex is not/should not be a strictly procreative activity in the world, and even couples capable of reproducing (i.e man & woman) can tend to have forms of sex that are not procreative. II. Addressing Con's Contentions "Why is it the taxpayer's burden to pay for someone elses stuff? It's not like birth control is too expensive. Target sells contraceptives at a rate that would have buyers without health insurance paying $9 per month [2]." Con is implying that the contention I am making here is that contraceptives should be distributed freely. That is not the contention I am pushing for. The contention I am pushing for is that contraceptives should be available to whomever needs them when they need them, and they should be a part of the general healthcare and freedom system of their country. A country should never be taking away the right women have to contraceptives and birth control, and just like healthcare, these things should always be available to those who want to buy them. Though it would, of course, be ideal that women get to have free contraceptives (at least for the women and their partners), it is not entirely necessary to do that. Taxpayers have a lot burdens, especially in the U.S, and paying for contraceptives to be free would be the least of their concern. "Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made. Nobody is burdened to pay for other peoples stuff. It's pretty simple." Does this contention address healthcare in a similar light? By revoking a woman's right to use contraceptives, one would be forcing them to raise their child and foster them away. "Don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [5]. There are a lot of ways to keep from having a child whilst not banging everything that moves." Again, sex should not have to be a strictly pro-creative activity between partners. Conditiong a country in a way where sex is strictly intended for reproducing is taking away plenty of basic human rights. Being celibate until marriage is also off-topic, seeing as those people intended to have children and had such for that reason specifically, not everyone does for that. What is a human right? A human right is [6] “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” This is a religious issue! You cannot have an atheistic debate over rights endowed by a Creator! If you believe that contraceptives are a human right, you assume that a superior being was all like This is a false definition, hu·man right noun plural noun: human rights a right that is believed to belong justifiably to ever http://www.humanrights.com... http://www.ohchr.org...III. Addressing Con's Questions"Is it morally justifiable to make someone else pay for your things if you can afford them? If yes, then who can't afford $9 of contraceptives? And why should we pay for them?"My contentions are not that contraceptives should be distributed at $0 prices. However, perhaps it would be logical to offer these contraceptives to someone through their health insurance, no?"Is it morally justifiable to make taxpayers pay for something that they believe is a gross violation of the human rights of the foetus?"It is ironic that con has jumped from the 'human rights' concept being a religious matter and not being material for the debate to actually using 'human rights' to justify the opposition of the right to contraceptives. May it also be on record that American taxpayers are paying for inhumane acts such as drone strikes and wars as it is, thus this would be too insignificant an amount of money to truly be a concern in the minds of taxpayers."Is it morally justifiable to make others take responsibility for your mistake in the bedroom?"No, but giving women the right to have contraceptives through their health insurance isn't doing this."Is it morally justifiable to kill a child so you can drink and smoke for 9 months?" This question is assuming that abortions are justified by the pregnant individual wanting to be able to drink and smoke."Would a just God give someone the right to kill his creation?"Take a look at the Bible, Torah and Koran; I would say based on those books that yes, a "just God" according to most religious people would allow such a thing._____________________________________________________________________________________Excuse my relatively short argument, my next will have much more length to it.

Title: is birth control good or nah Content: First, let"s understand how birth control pills work in your body. Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized. If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month. When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle. Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don"t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates "normally." This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year.

Title: Minors should need parental consent for abortions Content: All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.

Title: the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity Content: A couple of responses are in order. 1. A contradiction is a philosophical claim. Contradictions involve the nature of statements juxtaposed together, which necessarily involves some philosophical valuation. Philosophies--such as NFP and Catholic reproductive ethics--can, in fact, contradict each other. 2. NFP is indeed not fool-proof. However, for Catholics, it is just as good as birth control, as Kreeft himself admits: "[NFP] is much more reliable than the 'rhythm method,' as reliable as 'the pill,'* and has none of the pill's side effects. .. " (250). Moreover, that it is not fool-proof does not mean it is "open to life"; if that's true, then condoms and the pill are both "open to life" since they are not universally perfect means of contraception. That it is "artificial" is not a meaningful standard, since the overriding claim against contraceptives from the Catholic end is that sex should be open to life, so even if you're using "natural" means of contraception, you're still not being open to life. In fact, you are in some senses violating your body even more, since you are using its natural functions against it. 3. I mean, there's no grand document at the Vatican saying "NFP is the way to go," but Catholic doctrine on sexual morality is universal, and since NFP--in the mind of the Church--is the only viable contraceptive solution, it therefore still counts as legitimate Church teaching. The contradiction therefore is still a meaningful one based on the standards set up in the first round. I urge a vote in the CON. *Note: this is utterly false.

Title: Schools give out free birth control pills Content: I believe that birth control pills should be given out in schools because we don't want children!!! Children are bad, we need to save the planet by saving space. So every girl and boy should get given them. The girls will take the pills, the boys will give them to their girlfriends.

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.Con: What does this have to do with anything?

Title: Schools give out free birth control pills Content: I would agree with you, but you need to understand that not every young couple is going to have under-aged sex. Also, it's one's decision to have sex. If someone gets pregnant, its their fault and they should worry about it, themselves. The schools shouldn't have to be the ones to take care of that situation. It also gives the impressing that the schools think so little of you. "Welcome to our school! Now take these birth control pills, because we think the worst for you." Wait a second, I just thought of something. What about those who don't know what sex is? No, really, what about those who weren't taught what sex is. I don't know if every school has a sex ed class, but you have to factor in the fact not every kid is going to know about sex. Also, you would think the parents would be in the biggest rampage because of that.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't the only thing that's getting the treatment. That's because each of those little pills contains hormones and changes the hormones in your body, according to Toni Stern, M.D., Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Coney Island Hospital. The Pill may hurt- LibidoOC's slash libido-friendly testosterone in two ways: First, they quiet the ovaries, halting their production of testosterone. Second, the liver pumps out a protein called the sex hormone-binding globulin, which gloms onto sex hormones ,including testosterone, like bargain shoppers on Black Friday sales. But while OC's lower testosterone levels in all women, they lower libido only in some. And even if the Pill does affect your mojo, plenty of other factors like anxiety about getting preggers affect it, too. You may have serious problems below the belt. Blood clots- Chances are, you've heard this warning speed by during more than one birth control pill commercial. But before you reach for a bottle of Bayer, let's put things into perspective: Each year, 7 in 10,000 women experience blood clots. Birth control extremely enhances your chances, while pregnancy and childbirth raise your chances even more. But if you experience any signs of a blood clot, such as chest pain or a swollen leg, immediately stop the pill for God's sake. http://www.parents.com... * This is why passing out contraceptives is not only wrong, but it is deadly. Of course Liberals, generally don't care about long term results, just temporary satisfaction. This is how children think.

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Con: "there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment." I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: "Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate." Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: "Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant." I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: "Con: What does this have to do with anything?" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.

Title: Late Term Abortion Content: RebuttalLateterm-abortion should not be legal since their are better alternatives that don't waste life, such as adoption, abstinence, birth control, condoms, the day after pill, and many other controceptives. When there is this many ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place and when there is this many alternatives to killing, why should killing another living breathing unborn baby be a choice?There are many other controceptives to choose from, and are cheap. However, in the case that contoceptives do not work, the mother does not have to keep the baby as long as 22 weeks when it can feel, when it can think, when the only thing that is seperating it from being considered a full person is it's location. If a mother did not want the baby she would have used better crotroceptives such as Praneem [1], which is way more effective then the average birth control pills and condoms, and all these can be used at once to effectivelly prevent pregnancy. Like I have already stated, since the woman was given so many alternatives and also kept the baby for 22 weeks. The women should think about that before having unprotected sex. Every action that we all make have consequences, and pregnancy is the consequence for unprotected sex. The fetus should not be the one that pays the price for his so-called mother's mistake.It is not my moral values that decide on whether a baby has the right to life or not, it is the government's. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two murders the woman's life and the baby's life. [2] If the baby has no right to life then why is there punishments against killing them? Because the baby does have rights. Therefore, if it is against the law to kill the unborn and not be the mother, then it should be illegal for the mother to do this also.Defense1) There is two things wrong with this. The first is that we live in a democracy, so if the majority of people do not like late-term abortion (which they agree with me), then it should stay illegal. Also, How does the fact that the mother practically invites the baby into her womb, and then waiting 22 weeks in which she is fully pregnant, then knowing that she could very easily put the baby up for adoption but would rather kill it justify giving a women to have her baby's brains sucked out? It doesn't, women already have plenty of choices, that will allow her and the baby to live their lives to the fullest.2) In the case that this is true and her family wont accept her, this does not make late-term abortion just. the damage would have already been done, and going through with the pregnancy and puting the baby up for adoption would be a better solution then killing the baby and still having a family that wont accept her. The fact is that it is hurting the baby, therefore shouldn't be legal.3) This statement is by your own opinion.The state is our governemnent. They make laws that protect us and society, this includes protection from ourselves. It is possible if members of society would stop killing eachother, this can be applied to late-term abortion since obviously the baby is being killed. Therefore, a great way to stop the corosion of our society is to make late-term abortion stay illegal.This is not logical to compare a underdeveloped unborn baby, who did not choose to be in the woman's body, to a grown person who is capable of rashional thought who chooses to break into someone elses home.The fetus will grow up and perform a task that society requires of it. The woman would be performing one of her tasks to society by baring children. Also, keeping late term abortion illegal is preserving the rights of the fetus.Final ConclusionLate-term abortion does not benefit society at all, but takes away valuable future people to carry on society. It is also has a very barbaric procedure in which it is carried out, and women have plenty of rights and alternatives late-term abortion should remain illegal.Vote con![1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2]http://civilliberty.about.com...

Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Abortion should be illegal (except for cases when a mothers life is greatly threatened) for these reasons which I will discuss in greater deal later; there are many ways births can be prevented , second the unborn babies are protected under the law, and it is against the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. There are many ways that are not an abortion that can be used before to prevent a birth. The Planned Parenthood website lists 20 different forms of birth control, many of which come at no charge. These different forms of birth control when used in tandem can reduce the risk of a birth to practically zero. These forms of birth control include but are not limited too: Abstinence Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon) Birth Control Patch Birth Control Pills Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera) Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge) Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing) cervical Cap (FemCap) Condom Diaphragm Female Condom Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs) IUD Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Spermicide Withdrawal (Pull Out Method) This slue of methods are all viable methods of preventing a birth. Unborn babies are in fact currently protected by the law. There is a current federal law called "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of it recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". This means legally a crime can be committed against a baby, such as murder. Currently as it stands the law sees unborn children as human and all humans have the right to life. No one has a right to rob someone of the right to life, not a mother, not a father, no one. Finally doctors who perform an abortion are in violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." is a line from the modern Hippocratic Oath. Killing a baby when there are other alternatives is in direct violation of the statement against over treatment. As long as any other option exists a doctor should not carry out an abortion, because the thing a doctor must hold most sacred, a human life, is at stake.

Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: You said, "Condoms and the pill aren't 100% effective, and the people could have unprotected sex because of being drunk, it just happened all at once, or ignorant of sexual education. " I say: Condom and birth control are not 100% effective. However, you can get fixed. If done properly, it is 100% effective. For being drunk, the sexual partner is raping the drunken person, since you can not legally give consent when under the influence. For being ignorant, you should know about sex before you. .. do it. Also I'd think most people know if they may have a baby. You say, "The woman also could have been raped. " I say: There is currently a woman activist, whose name escapes me at the moment, who attends schools in West Virgina, speaking out agenst abortions. Her mother was raped, and her child is leading a successful life. Her mother stated that she couldn't have been prouder of her daughter. We have to give the child a chance to live. You say, "If a baby is deformed, then it is possible to detect later on in pregnancy, and an abortion would be a very moral thing to do in that case. " I say: It is possible to recover from a deformity. We are not talking about a common case though. Even so, if a deformity is what is the sole reason for abortion, I don't see how that is "very moral". You say, "Abortion also does good because it brings the population under control, and lets people plan out their lives better. " I say: We could pass laws through reformation stating you must be fixed after a certain number of children. There's no need to kill them. While it may help keeping population under control, there is no need to have abortion after abortion. Sometimes, people do it wrong and hurt themselves and the baby. As for planning out your life, that's hard to do anyways. Because, like an unexpected baby, life throws other unexpected things at you. Who's to say that the abortion will not cause prolonged emotional trauma? It's happened, You say, "What's wrong with that, is that the fetus is still part of the woman's body until birth. Also, the fetus isn't considered a person until it is formed enough. Conception is only a cluster of cells. " I say: You're just a cluster of cells. I can't kill you. Besides, if it has the chance to grow up, it likely will. That is a matter of perception whether or not it is a person. You say, "A logical answer of when a fetus is formed enough to be considered a person is when the fetus can survive outside of the body. " I say: Sure that's logical, but it's not practical. I conducted a survey at my school, and projected that 78% of the students thought it was a person. This is effective, because many abortions are with unplanned teen pregnancy. You say, "There could also be other ways a pregnancy could be a risk to a woman's health, which a C Section would not solve. " I say: I'm not saying that a C-section is the solution for everything. If there is a rare case where that happens, we have to consider the lesser of the two evils. Allowing a woman to die, or the baby. That choice should be up to the mother, and if abortion happens in that case, then it is to save a life, not to destroy it.

Title: Birth Control Content: I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.

Title: Abortion Content: #1 assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc. Sir, may i ask is it or is it not that most abortions are from young teens or women that were just having sex just to be having it and were irreasponsible.When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year. Maybe not 100% effect but good enough. While 100% of the 15 year-olds reported using condoms "usually" or "always", the percentage of 16 (60%), 17 (53%), and 18 (50%) year-olds who did so declined with each year as sexually active females became older. As they got older at the age of 18 half of american women stopped using a condom. Also i left them out because according to the crimeandclues.com that most rapists are using condom now a days to prevent DNA evidence.Also i left them out because of my first statement "No life should be taken,without probable cause." that statement automatically ruled out rape even accidentally got pregnant with the condom and pill is also a probable cause. That one statement had a meaning and may i ask why this statement must be defended when its quiet obvious , kill someone with out a just,cause is wrong. #2 Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a "potential" person, which is not the same thing. I would like you to refrain from insulting me if it makes no sense to you please say so kindly and don't be arrogant about it, thank you. Next it is a person and embryo is a persons first stage of life,a person who goes brain dead is still living but has no brain function therfore people usually give up on them and pull the plug.But an embryo is fine, growing a soul and you cut the wire before that can happen thats like cutting a babys legs of therefore he did not know what he lost so its fine. let me see how i could better explain take yourself say before you could see i cut out your eyes out therfore i can do that because you havent experienced or developed them yet. I now stand ready sir.

Title: ivf debate Content: Birth control may be taken. If birth control is not taken then there is a chance of cysts and the eggs not being fertilized at the correct cycle. If estrogen levels are not correct , then injections may be needed which may counteract the birth control being taken.The baby may not be correctly placed and may be stuck in the insertion catheter at the time of insertion.(http://www.shadygrovefertility.com...) It is insanely expensive to conceive babies through this fashion. A family that does not make over $75000 and is uninsured will have to pay about $8470 (https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com...)

Title: Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion Content: As this will be my last round, I will provide a brief overview of my points, Con's counter arguments, and why they do not work.1. In this point I argue that the woman owns her own body and therefore has final say over what happens to her body. Most would agree with this, but Con argues that in the case of a pregnancy, the father is entitled to equal control over the woman's body to the extent that what she does affects the baby (which is technically everything she does, but Con's focus is on abortion). Con claims that this entitlement is given to the father due to the hardships he has to go through during the pregnancy. These hardships include driving her to the hospital, financial aid and general catering. My response to this argument was 2-fold. Firstly, these “hardships” only apply assuming the mother does not get an abortion. If she does, then none of these sacrifices are made. Therefore, this argument is only relevant under the assumption that the father already has enough say to stop the abortion, which makes it a circular argument. Con does not address this criticism. Secondly, I pointed out that this standard insinuates that one's right over their own body can be purchased (via favours and finance). I go on to question how such a system breaks down – that is, how much hardship and sacrifice must the father offer before his say is equal to 50%. How does Con justify this involuntary acquisition of “say” by the father? Rather than developing his argument further, Con claims that I am misrepresenting his argument, but does not explain how this is a misrepresentation (explaining the difference), making his counter argument non-existent. He reiterates that his argument is “sacrifice = 50% say”, but does not seem to see how this suggests the father is purchasing say via favours and finance. Regardless, the question remains – How much sacrifice does it take to gain 50% of someone else's right to their own body? Since Con cannot make new argument next round, this point has been laid to rest in favour of Pro. Finally, Con claims that I ignored his argument about “being the host only equal 50% say”. I didn't ignore this argument because it's not an argument – it's an assertion. Con asserts that owning your own body only gives you 50% say over your own body. I don't know by what measure he is coming up with this figure, and in all likelihood there is no measure, just an assertion. 2. In this point I argue that the mother contributes more towards the fetus' genome, therefore winning the genetic argument. Con claims the difference is negligible, but this is merely an excuse to dismiss the argument. Surely if the percentage was reversed, he would use it as an argument in his favour, though he would never admit it. In the case of a company's stock where two owners, each with the same percentage of ownership, have a disagreement, what happens? Nothing. But if one owner has even one share more than the other, regardless of how many times the company has split their stock, that owner is recognized as having majority control. The magic number is 50%, and any amount greater than that, regardless of how small, still sways the decision. Therefore, so long as genetic contribution is taken into account, we must recognize that the mother has the greater say. Con attempts to plead for the fathers case by saying he is naturally disadvantaged. This is irrelevant. Of course he is naturally disadvantaged. That's the point. He contributes less, and that's all there is to it. As Con has neither conceded nor dissolved this point, it rests in favour of Pro. 3. In this point I argue that the man gives his sperm to the woman, thereby relinquishing ownership of it to the extent that the mother can choose to use it, or not use it to make a baby. Con's rebuttal, despite being preemtively debunked, is essentially that the man does not relinquish ownership of the sperm because he gave it to her specifically to make a baby. This argument is asinine as the fathers desire to see a baby be made does not in any way trump the woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. Remember, no contract was made prior to conception removing this right from the woman, therefore she retains it exclusively. Con's return point is a re-statement of this same argument. He argues that the man has the right to have a baby with this woman because he emptied sperm into her. He does not explain how or why this “right” (which is never justified initially beyond his assertion) trumps the woman's right to govern herself. Why does “giving sperm” entitle him to any rights over her person? This sort of logic does not apply to any other relationship or agreement. If there is no legally binding contract stating the man has these rights, and the woman owns herself, then she has the right to not make a baby. Con states that a bank has the right to refuse service because they have a “clear cut” reason to refuse service, while the woman does not. This is nothing short of grasping at straws. It is of no consequence whether or not the man understands why the woman wants to “refuse service” as it is her body and she has exclusive ownership of it. How would we even qualify what is and is not a “clear cut” reason? Con claims I am dancing around his argument that the man has rights as well (due to his sacrifices). I am not ignoring this argument because there is no argument, just an assertion. The issue here is that Con is starting from the assumption that the man has say and working backwards. The woman has initial rights because it is her body in question, but any rights the man has over the woman's body need to be justified. They are not assumed. Simply pointing out that the father makes sacrifices (sacrifices that wouldn't even happen assuming the abortion is carried out) is an extremely underdeveloped argument for the reasons I've outlined numerous times. His argument is circular and his conclusion is unwarranted. 4. Here I argue that since there is no middle-ground option, there can be no true 50/50 split. The 50/50 split only exists to the extent that both parties already agree with one another. Con attempts to refute this by suggesting possible middle-ground options, but none of them are actually “middle ground”. Every one of them results in an abortion not happening. It is readily obvious that “no abortion” does not equal “somewhere between an abortion and no abortion”. Con does not defend his 4 options, but rather asserts their validity. I will make this as clear as possible; if the dispute is “abort, or not to abort”, then any option that either ends in an abortion or does not end in an abortion is not an alternative to the “abort/ don't abort” dispute. One gets their way and the other does not. 5. In this point I argue that if child is not property, the only remaining relevant factor is the woman's self-ownership. Con's response is that the man contributes equally to the fetus' genome (this is not true. Even 49.99999% =/= 50%, and as stated in round 1 less than 50% = no say) and goes through hardships, therefore he is entitled to 50% say. These arguments have been laid to rest over and over again, so no further debunking is required. 6. Con claims that he ignored these arguments because he felt they didn't apply. It is not my burden, nor the voter's burden to guess why Con has dropped an argument, so this is no excuse. However, Con apologizes for not clarifying earlier, so no biggie. Since these arguments are predicated on a point we do not agree on at this point (if there can be a 50/50 split in say), I will retire these arguments for both our sakes. Conclusion Con's argument rests entirely on assertions he has not justified. He is starting from his conclusion and working backwards, which is why his arguments do not stand the test of scrutiny, thereby making his arguments both unsound and invalid. As such, his BoP is unfulfilled and the resolution is affirmed. I turn the debate over to Con for the final word.

Title: is birth control good or nah Content: then we will have over population and it will be terrible.

Title: Birth Control is Immoral Content: ~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a "birth control". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write "no argument as agreed upon" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.

Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: They should not because the pills are very expensive and a teenager needs a parents help in this important ordeal.

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Birth control is not a medical necessity for all women. In fact, I challenge my opponent to prove how it is since the burden of proof lies with her. On the subject of Viagra, Pro's claim is untrue; that medication is only covered by some insurance companies, not all. Other men have to pay for the medication just like women have to pay for birth control. There is no sexism behind this issue unless you wish it to be there. It is absurd to bring in the equal rights amendment considering that men cannot become pregnant. The situation is completely biased and that makes the issue moot. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she can practice abstinance or buy the birth control on her own. The implication that not covering birth control says that women's health is not important is incorrect and unfounded. If anything, it makes women more independent because THEY have to be responsible for their own selves. This is equivalent to men having to buy condoms; it is their responsibility and no one else. In conclusion, there is no reason for insurance companies to pay for any type of birth control, whether male or female. It is a purposeless endeavor.

Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy" Article source: http://ec.princeton.edu...

Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their "wise master".

Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: You claim that teens being able to buy birth control automatically will cause teen pregnancies to drop, but just because you buy something doesnt mean you will actually use it or use it properly. My dad buys rifles and ammunition almost once a week but he never uses them he just mounts it on the wall or sells it to a higher price to his friends. Just because teens could buy birth control does not guarantee they will actually use them. Only 35% of teenagers use condoms even though they have access to them. http://www.idph.state.il.us... After you read that statistic look two lines lower on the website, teenagers like to get hammered and use illegal drugs during sex so they might not even have the common sense to use the birth control they bought..... You may want to consider that just because it is now more accessible doesnt guarantee that teenagers will still go and buy them. Also consider the fact that they must be used correctly. There are many birth control contraptions that could do quite a bit of damage to the teenager if they use it improperly, sometimes birth control pills and such are linked to causing many problems in an individual Yaz: a birth control product used by millions of women was found to be linked to horrible side effects such as blindness, in some cases cancer, strokes, etc. and that is just ONE of the DOZENS of birth control supplements out there on the market. You claim that parents dont want to let their kids have sex because they will get pregnant and that sex is safe with birth control, perhaps you have never heard of things called STD's.... STD's, as we all know, are sexually transmitted diseases and there is no form of birth control on the market that prevents against the passing of any STD from one individual to another. STD's affect far more teenagers than teenage pregnancies do, and STDs affect teenagers more than any other age group.... Sources showing birth control does not protect against STD's http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com... http://ehealthforum.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.zocdoc.com... http://www.womenshealthzone.net... Number of STD cases each year (roughly 3 million a year among teenagers) HIV = 10,000 to 20,000 new cases a year among teenagers Chlamydia = 40% of ALL girls 15 to 19 HPV = 15% of ALL girls 15 to 19 Herpes = up to a million new cases each year total, a great proportion of them among teenagers AIDS = Over a million total, many cases are not even reported though.... http://health.shiawassee.net... http://www.bhg.com... Teenage pregnancy = 1 out of 12 teenage girls, Teenage STD's = 1 out of 4.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could go on but Ill stop here for now, so let me summarize: Unconditional access to birth control by teenagers should not be legal because 1) Just because teenagers buy them doesn't mean they will use it properly or at all 2) Birth control (Yaz for example) has many harmful effects that cause many more health problems then they prevent 3) Birth controls do NOT prevent against STD's which spread faster and affect WAY more teenagers than pregnancy does 4) The alleged health "benefits" of the POSSIBILITY of lowering pregnancy rates would be greatly offset by the number of new STD cases, which in many cases prove to be lethal.....

Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up.

Title: Birth control Content: According to the world health organization NFP is 99.6 percent effective. http://www2.richmonddiocese.org... That source of yours is biased. Condoms provide SOME protection against other STD's, but they have very high failure rate's at doing so. The risks might go back down, but that doesn't help women who get breast cancer while still on the pill. No condoms do not prevent abortion. That is only one reason why NFP couples have such low divorce rates. Read the rest of it. There are several other reasons as well. "Isn't using birth control better than having unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions? Look at both these issues and judge for yourself if contraception is part of the solution or part of the problem. Because of the widespread use of birth control, more people than ever have sex without intending to have children. Sex out of wedlock has become far more common, and more sex means more babies. Some argue that teaching people how to use contraceptives will alleviate the problem. But research shows that "programs in safer sex education and condom distribution have not reduced the out-of-wedlock birth rates among sexually experienced teens. . . . The fact is, increased condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates."[1] A few years ago in Colorado, one school began passing out condoms to the students. Within three years the birth rate rose 31 percent above the national average, and in one school year one hundred births were expected among the twelve hundred students. The administrators were described as "searching for explanations."[2] When unwanted pregnancies occur, many turn to abortion as a solution. In fact, studies show that about half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion.[3] Some argue that increased use of contraception could have lowered these abortion rates. However, the research institute of the nation's largest abortion provider admits that most women who receive abortions had been using birth control during the month they became pregnant![4] Such couples feel that the "fault" of the pregnancy can be blamed on the failed contraception, but by contracepting they have already set their wills against new life. Since contraception treats pregnancy as if it were a disease, many people conclude that abortion must be the cure. I once saw a condom advertisement that called pregnancy "the mother of all nightmares." With this mentality it is no surprise that the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey said, "At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently used contraceptives."[5] Even a former medical director of Planned Parenthood admitted in 1973, "As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate."[6] Fifty million abortions later, no one can dispute his prediction. Lastly, it should be noted that anyone who believes that contraception decreases abortions ignores the fact that hormonal birth control can cause abortions.[7] Click here for details on that. Mother Teresa did not need to see the statistics. She was well aware of the connection between contraception and abortion when she said in a speech in the presence of Bill and Hillary Clinton: "The way to plan the family is Natural Family Planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily."[8] __________________ [1]. The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, "New Study Shows Higher Unwed Birthrates Among Sexually Experienced Teens Despite Increased Condom Use" (February 10, 1999). [2]. Jana Mazanee, "Birth Rate Soars at Colorado School," USA Today, May 19, 1992, 3A. [3]. Stanley Henshaw, "Unintended Pregnancy in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives 30:1 (1998), 24–29, 46. [4]. Rachel Jones, et al., "Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000–2001," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 34:6 (November/December 2002), 296. [5]. Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States: A Conference Sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the New York Academy of Medicine (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), 157. [6]. Malcolm Potts, Cambridge Evening News, February 7, 1973, as quoted in "The Connection: Abortion, Permissive Sex Instruction, and Family Planning," Life Research Institute (January 2000). [7]. Walter L. Larimore and Joseph B. Stanford, "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent," Archives of Family Medicine 9 (February 2000), 126–133. [8]. Mother Teresa, February 5, 1994, National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C. (Chastity.com) "Sometimes, all of the Pill's mechanisms fail to prevent pregnancy and successful implantation. It is often said that with optimum use of the Pill, it should have an effectiveness rate of 99 percent. Therefore, it is said to have a "method" failure rate of about 1 percent. However, in typical use the rates change significantly. This can be caused by many things, such as a woman's forgetting to take her pill or taking it at the wrong time of the day. Thus the actual rate, called the "typical" or "user" failure rate. For the first year of use for women under the age of twenty, the Pill has an annual failure rate of 8 to 13 percent.[21] One study that followed sexually active teenage girls on the Pill found that 20 percent of them became pregnant within six months![22] The typical failure rate of the Pill has been shown to vary according to such factors as a woman's age, race, marital status, education, and economic status. For example, one large study showed that poor teenage girls who lived with their boyfriends had a 48 percent chance of getting pregnant during their first year on the Pill, whereas a wealthy married woman over the age of thirty had a 3 percent chance of pregnancy.[23]" (Chastity.com)

Title: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients’ over-the-counter purchases, but a patient’s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer’s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.

Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control.

Title: Presidential Debate: Lannan13 vs. TBA Content: 1. AbortionLet me clarify myself, I stated how we the US could take abortion out of the political arena by having non-prescribed birth control pills. It basically allows the women to choose if they want to have a safe abortion, while simultaneously not forcing private religious businesses to cover birth control. Argument's of infringement of religion would be nullified as the Federal government won't need to take a stand on abortion.2. Gay marriageWhile my opponent rides on the 10th amendment for gay marriage, I still retain that the issue of gay marriage is strictly a 14th amendment right. The 10th amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 14th amendment which protect the civil liberties of US citizens states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 3. Voting "Rights"I still believe it is a state issue since several Federal investigations have found virtually no evidence of organized voter fraud, and this was during President Bush's term who pledged to crack down on voter fraud. (http://www.nytimes.com...)4. Foreign PolicyJust because Israel is a great ally it doesn't mean that we must support them. While Iran's threats are extravagant, it only shows that Iran can only employ saber rattling tactics to goad the US, and Israel into striking first. We will show Iran we mean business, but we will also do so by denying the Iranians any sort of moral appeal.Syria- Look if we try any of those Charlie Wilson's war crap for the Syrian rebels while they still have Al Qaida affiliates we might as well be supplying AA guns to the Hezbollah, AQAP, Hamas, and the Taliban. We need assurances those weapons won't fall into the wrong hands, and the rebels haven't assured us at all. I still think Egypt is better off than Northern Mali, if there is an urgent reason to intervene it is the likely hood of Syria becoming like Northern Mali or Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power.North Korea- North Korea already has Nukes, they just don't have the technologies to make an ICBM. We are trying to prevent them from obtaining an ICBM which would mean that they could drop a nuke on US Soil or on allied soil. So far we don't know fully the new leader's aganda so we'll keep a wait and see attitude. 5.Welfare and Social Security Welfare is actually a part of Social Security as it falls under unemployment benefits and Temporary Assistance for needy families. We use Social Security numbers to track individuals' accounts within the Social Security program. However SSN's have since been used as an identifier for individuals within the United States, although rare errors occur where duplicates do exist. However, since numbers are now assigned by the central issuing office of the SSA, it is highly unlikely that such duplications occur again. If we abolish Social Security then We will need to find another way to identify US citizens in legal transactions, and another way to retain the 401k.6. DeficitI still think Fiat money is far more viable than platinum money. Does anyone remember the Nixon-shock that made the US dollar unconvertible to gold? Well the economist Paul Krugman summarized the post-Nixon Shock era as, "The current world monetary system assigns no special role to gold; indeed, the Federal Reserve is not obliged to tie the dollar to anything. It can print as much or as little money as it deems appropriate. There are powerful advantages to such an unconstrained system. Above all, the Fed is free to respond to actual or threatened recessions by pumping in money. To take only one example, that flexibility is the reason the Stock Market Crash of 1987—which started out every bit as frightening as that of 1929—did not cause a slump in the real economy. While a freely floating national money has advantages, however, it also has risks. For one thing, it can create uncertainties for international traders and investors. Over the past five years, the dollar has been worth as much as 120 yen and as little as 80. The costs of this volatility are hard to measure (partly because sophisticated financial markets allow businesses to hedge much of that risk), but they must be significant. Furthermore, a system that leaves monetary managers free to do good also leaves them free to be irresponsible—and, in some countries, they have been quick to take the opportunity." 7. Electoral CollegeYour contention is essentially abolishing the electoral college. See in the Federalist Papers Essay No. 39 written by James Madison, it argues that the constitution is a mix between population and state-based government. It was argued that Congress would have two houses; a state-based Senate, and a population-based House of Representatives. At the same time, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes. Now if we decided to take out the primary function of the electoral college then we are promoting a mobocracy. Something that our founding fathers tried to prevent through the electoral college. 8. Gun controlWhile my arguments may seem like for the status quo, I am talking about laws similar to the one passed in New York, along with elements of California's gun control laws. The law passed in New York clamps down on the sale of ammunition and the sale of guns, requiring background checks on even the private sale of guns – except to family members. The New York law also attempts to keep the mentally ill from obtaining guns. While its true we had some back ground checks, none actually had mental-health screening and home inspections prior to a gun purchase. In the case of acquiring multiple fire arms we enact California legislation which has an individual wait a month before buying a second hand gun.

Title: Birth control Content: First, I would like to apologize for this round, as I am not able to handle all arguments as fully as I would like to. Please do not hold this overly against me 1. Failure RatesMy opponent cites unsourced statistics of success from the Catholic Diosceses of Richmond. I don't think I need to say what's wrong here.2. Pill CancerIt does help women who might otherwise have gotten one of the types of cancer the pill protects against. I assume the risks probably mostly balance each other out. Regardless, if one fears cancer so much, one need not use the pill. That does not preclude using another type of birth control.3. STDs and Condoms I don't feel like pointlessly rehashing an argument here, so I will simply quote a government site. Note what I said last round about any protection being better than nothing. "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer." [1]4. NFP and Divorce I invite my opponent to make a case regarding this instead of using her source as an argument. 5. More PregnancyThe birth control did not increase the birth rate, that was the students being stupid and having more sex. Birth control cannot be blamed for people's idiocy.6. Abortion I concede this point fully.New Arguments:A. Natural Family Planning is not always possible It is complicated, and generally only usable by people in a stable relationship. Additionally, it provides no STD protection, and requires abstinence. The biggest issue is, of course, the complexity and relationship requirement. NFP is pretty much useless unless you are married or in a very stable relationship [2]. You can't just be like "Tonight let's use NFP" out of nowhere, it requires an excessive amount of preparation and is easier to screw up than pretty much any other tactic. Do note that my opponent seems to have dropped the argument from the Bible. Sources:1. http://www.cdc.gov...2. http://www.nhs.uk...;

Title: Euthanasia should be available for use. Content: I am inclined to yield to my opponent's statement, " instead of debating possible scenarios and requirements, we are simply arguing over weather it should simply be used. As clear cut yes or no stance." My standing is no, euthanasia should not be available for use. My opponent has brought up the concept of body autonomy as a counter argument, and while I agree that bodily autonomy is important, it needs its restrictions as much as anything else does. The ability and knowledge that we have control of who we are and what we do is one of the few feelings of actual freedom we ever get to truly express. Yet, nothing is without its consequences. Should someone consent to be euthanized, every outcome needs to be taken into account. For example, the costs, the lasting effects on those who care about the person, the effect on the person giving the Euthanization. We cannot allow such an act to be available for use if the main argument is bodily autonomy and the patient not wanting to be a burden on those caring for them. It isn't always ourselves we worry about, it's also how are actions affect others. Bodily autonomy is accepted, but it shouldn't be absolute, we would reap far more consequences than originally intended. Now for my counter argument, I would like to introduce the public conscience and medical ethics. When anything is legalized and made available, it becomes accepted. When something becomes accepted, it becomes a norm. Euthanasia should not be available for use for its inevitable affects on the public conscience and its violation of the doctors moral codes and ethics. If euthanasia were available and accepted, we would be hiring executioners, not doctors. The public mind would sway to a numbed state, where walking into a hospital is either your conscience decision to be treated or placed in a body bag. But that's just the issue, soon, death would become so common a thing and people would accept the fact that you would never need to suffer again. The ill would see euthanasia as a quicker more efficient means of treatment, and if the public wasn't still in the state of mind that the loss is great, they'd be in support of and making pre arrangements for the newly decided to be deceased. The other problem with that would be the decision on who would commit the Euthanization. Doctors and nurses alike take an oath not to bring harm to any person who comes into their care, to treat those who need them most, and to not simply let a person die. If euthanasia were available, who would be the one to deliver it? The doctors? They have broken an oath to not bring harm to those under their care. The nurses? They have also just broken their oath. So we must resort to the unbiased, the people whose conscience mind see nothing in euthanasia besides the earning of cash. The possibility of recovery is not the only reason euthanasia should not be available for use. Society has evolved from what it was so long ago, we cannot simply throw out the progress that has been made for an easier solution, for an absolute control over the body. Limitations exist to keep a general welfare, it is not a minority that destroys a person's right to end their life. It is the oaths, the public mind, the costs, the effects. It is the majority.

Title: Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities Content: Under our current laws, women are afforded the right to decide when they become parents. Even if they choose to have unprotected sex, they have access to emergency contraception and abortion. Men are not afforded the right to decide when they become parents. If a woman chooses to have a child, the father of the child is financially responsible whether he wanted her to keep the baby or not. In this day, when men and women are treated as equals by the government, forcing a man to accept the responsibilities of parenthood before he chooses is discriminatory. Women have equal access to birth control In the past, women did not have equal access to birth control. It was reasonable to make men pay child support because women could not protect themselves from becoming pregnant. Men, however, could prevent a pregnancy. This is not the case anymore. Women have access to more birth control products than men. They can use the birth control pills, IUDs, the birth control patch, the cervical cap, the diaphragm, the vaginal sponge, the shot, and sterilization [1]. Men can no longer be held responsible under the premise that they should have used birth control. Women have access to many birth control choices and are still given the choice to terminate a pregnancy, therefore clearing them of responsibility.Men are not given a choice when it comes to keeping the child If a couple engages in intercourse that results in pregnancy, women are not required to ask the father whether or not he wants to raise his child, even if a man is financially prepared and is willing to take full custody. She can choose to have an abortion, and he has no legal means to stop her. Men also do not have the right to force women to have abortion, even if they are not financially able to raise a child. Men should not have to pay child support to women if women do not have to allow them to be part of the decision. If it is solely the woman’s choice to keep a child, it should also be her responsibility to care for the child.Sources[1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

Title: Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ... Content: Given the existence of the various unpleasant side-effects discussed, nobody would sensibly choose the morning-after pill over other forms of contraception, or risk unprotected sex on the grounds that they can take a morning-after pill afterwards. Emergency contraceptives are for use in emergencies - and emergencies really do happen, and really do need to be dealt with.

Title: Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control Content: Thank you to Con for his reply. I shall now answer each of his objections.O1: AbortionCon restates his position that we must consider abortion as a valid birth control option. However, I gave two reputable (with one being pro-choice) sources stating that abortion is not a method of birth control. In addition, the resolution that I have BOP over is preventative birth control, not post-conception abortion. The point here is to stop conception, period, not come along later and abort the fetus. As for the ones that will "slip through," Con correctly states that this could theoretically happen in rare cases. Unfortunately, to disregard an entire premise based on a less-than-1% chance of failure (which is what Norplant and other long-term contraception options have), is like saying we should abolish the entire prison system because once in a great while, an innocent man goes to jail. Obviously we would not do this. We would instead deal with that particular case. If birth control is administered by a doctor and still fails, then that particular baby would go on to be born and the mother would continue to receive benefits. No system is foolproof, but contraceptives administered by a health care provider would go a long way toward ensuring that errors are highly minimal.My opponent claims that mandatory birth control is "sneaky" because people would be forced to "do what we tell them" if they want their money. Anyone who is employed is already quite familiar with this premise, because that's what employment is: Doing what someone tells you, so you can have money. Plenty of people are not happy with facets of their employment, but they perform the duties because that's what is required--and without that paycheck they would be desperate. There's nothing sneaky about that. O2: Best Option/Moral Judgments"Lack of willingness to take responsibility for their actions" in no way denotes a moral judgment. Instead, it is a common sense argument. Adults take responsibility for themselves and their families. A moral judgment would include commentary on the fact that both case examples involve children by multiple fathers, most of whom are in and out of jail. It would also pronounce a personal opinion on the drug use of the mothers. In actuality, who these women (or men) sleep with is no one's concern; nor is it our business how often they are in jail. The only relevant point here is their demonstrated inability to financially provide for themselves. Since both of my sources--one of them being a welfare recipient--admit that they're not going to stop having children, the burden falls on taxpayers to subsidize their conduct. Does Con believe that his taxes should go to pay for the medical bills and daily sustenance for someone who has lung cancer because they chose to smoke? "Octomom" is a classic example as well. She was on welfare before she had her 8 babies. Do you really believe it's our job to subsidize someone who wanted to conceive babies when she already was not able to provide for the babies she had? The PRO argument is not that she shouldn't be allowed to have children at all. The argument is that she shouldn't be allowed to have babies she cannot financially provide for.All of our liberties come with responsibilities and guidelines that we must adhere to. Yes, we have freedom of speech--within reason. Yes, we have freedom of assembly--as long as its peaceable. Yes, you can have as many babies as you want--as long as you can provide for them. O3: Appeal to the MassesCon mischaracterizes my argument here. All I did was state that 62% of citizens would support a mandatory birth control law. The logical fallacy does not exist because we are talking about proposing a law in a democratic republic. Therefore, the will of the people has merit. I am not stating that my proposal is "true" because the masses say it is. I'm stating that the majority of the people, from a legal standpoint, support the law being passed. O4: Having More Children Con uses a quote by the Massachusetts welfare director out of context to insinuate that my argument allows welfare mothers to have more children. If we read the entire context, we see that she was talking "about a similar program to stop additional benefits for mothers who continue to have children on welfare." I'm well aware that it wasn't about mandatory birth control. It was showing that similar programs are already underway because state governments are beginning to see that there is a problem. If anything, that's a perfect solution to the ones that "slip through" the net, as Con puts it.O5: Religious ProcreationThis entire segment is pointless, as Con is on record in multiple debates arguing against the existence of God, generally seen as the Divine Author of the Bible. This means that not even Con agrees with Biblical theology, and so his use of it to bolster his argument is hard to understand. That being said, it again becomes a matter of context. There are only 11 instances of God telling someone to "be fruitful and multiply," and none of them are generalized admonitions to mankind. Three of those are to Adam and Eve, the only two people on the earth at that time. Two were to Noah, who with his family, were the only survivors of the Great Flood. One was in regard to Ishmael, the father of the Arabic nations, as God explained that he would make the Arabs a mighty people. Two were to Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. One was to the people of Israel as part of their covenant through Moses. The last two are prophecies by Ezekiel and Isaiah, explaining to the Jews that if they would stop worshipping idols, God would bless them. At no time is there a command for all mankind to irresponsibly conceive over and over with no thought to consequences. O6: DiversityCon makes an incredible statement here in regard to my point on genetic diversity when he says that "Some how even after two long paragraphs talking about genetics & the diversity of genetics in a species, some how Pro makes this about black people."Not only did I not ever mention "black people," but Con straw mans here by pretending that I did, even claiming I'm obsessed with them. In addition, his own definition of "minorities" as being only referring to "black people" is flawed at its base. The lack of logic or even basic demographic understanding in this segment is surpassed only by his sarcasm.O7: Military RecruitmentThis segment is also lacking, as he claims he "clearly provided argument that showed how the Geroge W Bushes of the world probably are not going to be signing up to fight in the military and or be getting out of actual combat." He somehow ties his completely unrelated point in with the topic at hand by saying "desperate poor people are a good source of military fodder." He is then advocating that we pay welfare to families so they may join the military for the express purpose of being used in war. I submit that "cultivating" a welfare-raised segment of the population for use as "fodder" is unreasonable to the point of incredulity, and far less humane than simply not creating this segment at all. O8: EconomicsLastly, Con revisits his war premise by claiming that "USA war machines needs [sic] man power, and thus [welfare] sucks man power away from other sectors of the economy." Does Con have any sources to support this idea?ConclusionCon's arguments are not only all over the board, but they are bolstered by less than credible sources (Wikipedia). He uses not only straw man arguments, but provides no statistical data to back up his claims that the U.S. "war machines" somehow reduce manpower in other facets of the economy, which is literally not related at all to the topic at hand.

Title: Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes. Content: Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, “A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.” 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had “no impactson rates of sexual abstinence.” [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...

Title: Public Funded Birth Control Content: Seeing that con has failed to counter the obviously beneficial outcomes of publicly funded birth control, I shall restate what I said earlier. Publicly funded birth control would be good for the environment since it slows down population growth, it would be good socially since less people would have to raise unintended children or have an abortion, and it would be beneficial economically since there would be less "welfare children" for the welfare system to pay for not to mention the money the consumer saves from not having to buy birth control.

Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: According to Plu,Edu.org giving out birth control in schools would increase the teen sex rate by 46% because they feel we are giving them the ok to have sex . . It is not the responsibility of the school to act as our parent. Plus there are side effects to birth control for example birth control pills prevent pregnancy 99.9% but they do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. According to Dr. Hutchinson from planned parent hood other side effects of taking birth control pills are depression, naseu, headaches and break through bleeding. Why are we teaching absitence in schools if there is another room in that school giving out birth control? We teach students to say to say no to drugs, we don't turn around and give the kids clean needles so they don't get diseases or infections. Let this be a family decision.

Title: Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception. Content: You start your argument with "I would like to point out that "Drugs" can include medication…such as contraceptives, rendering your whole argument illogical." Ok I CLEARLY stated "illegal drugs", Such as "Heroin, cocaine etc". The last time I looked "medication" and "contraception" is not generally illegal, So immediately your off point, Also you did not choose too ignore my "faulty wording" (as you put it) you made a comment about it (Just for the record) anyway... "To force by law for someone to take a drug is a scary thought. People should at the very least have control over the happenings of their own bodies." So what about the rights of the baby? A baby has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens to its body, It is completely defenceless against anything a mother chooses to do. Cocaine............... Cocaine abuse during pregnancy is associated with various maternal and fetal problems. Cocaine, is a central nervous system stimulant. It has vasoconstrictive effects, significantly decreasing blood flow to the fetus, resulting in periods of decreased oxygen. Many cocaine users use other drugs, exposing the fetus to many drugs, compounding the problems. For women who use cocaine throughout pregnancy it has been proven that they are at a greater risk for premature births of their babes, and a greater chance of delivering still born babies. Heroin............. Heroin easily crosses the placenta, An unborn fetus exposed to heroin has an increased rate of infection. Babies born to mothers who used heroin during pregnancy are also associated with a decrease in birth weight, and an increase in stillbirths. Fetal Addiction of Heroin............ Babies born to mothers who have a heroin addiction have a very difficult time and must stay in the hospital to receive treatment for withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms include hyperactivity, convulsions, diarrhea, fever, sleep abnormalities, and respiratory distress. Once they are discharged from the hospital they may even experience abnormal breathing patterns during sleep, thus increasing the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome seen in these children. The effects of maternal heroin addiction may persist in the offspring for an extended period of time, resulting in poor growth and development. They may demonstrate behavioral abnormalities, including impaired organization and perception skills, impaired motor inhibition and mental retardation. Also as for your argument in regards to Marijuana - "Your argument revolves around mind destroying drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Drugs such as marijuana and tobacco must not be lumped in that same category, however. Surely you would not want to keep someone from having a child simply because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana." A lot of mothers may believe that smoking marijuana does not jeopardize their unborn child. However, on the contrary, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of marijuana can cross the placenta, so the potential for damage to the fetus does exist. So your wrong again! Also Marijuana is a mind altering drug so yes it can inhibit parental abilities. All children need protecting from abuse including unborn children, A woman's rights to bear children should be suspended until she is in a position both physically and mentally and socially to have a child. I shall save the rest of my argument for my closing statement.

Title: Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family Content: A controlled birth rate you say? I think wars from time immemorial have been fought over the basic needs. How do you control birth for a certain period of time, by inserting pills in the food we eat?

Title: Preventive Health Care Content: The mental image of condoms stacked in a bowl like Halloween candy is quite humorous, but truly a ridiculous misinterpretation. I'm not saying to stuff the pockets of teens with rubbers. I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse, it merely increases the levels of pregnancy and STD's in teens. As a sort of case study, I present the words of an anonymous teenage mother, (they have been edited for profanity) " When I was 14 I got (sexually active), but I didn't know how dangerous ( sexual intercourse) was. I didn't take some health class or even know what a condom was. My (partner) didn't have condoms cuz the lady at the gas station told him to go get his parents. I wasn't gonna ask my mom to take me to a (gynecologist) so I just hoped my friends were right when they said you cant get preggers the first time... If I knew what I know I would be a college junior and not a baby-mama." If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful. These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... "A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion." All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety. These statistics show more information to back my position.

Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: Thank you for responding, you mentioned that condoms and other birth control will stop a baby from being conceived, but that is not always true. Condoms and the pill aren't 100% effective, and the people could have unprotected sex because of being drunk, it just happened all at once, or ignorant of sexual education. The woman also could have been raped. If a baby is deformed, then it is possible to detect later on in pregnancy, and an abortion would be a very moral thing to do in that case. Abortion also does good because it brings the population under control, and lets people plan out their lives better. You mentioned that it was the baby's body that is the issue. What's wrong with that, is that the fetus is still part of the woman's body until birth. Also, the fetus isn't considered a person until it is formed enough. Conception is only a cluster of cells. A logical answer of when a fetus is formed enough to be considered a person is when the fetus can survive outside of the body. There could also be other ways a pregnancy could be a risk to a woman's health, which a C Section would not solve.

Title: LGBTQ is Totally Okay! Content: No, no I can't... wait, that was theoretical, right?____________________________________________________The notion of overpopulation is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. Simple birth control programs would contradict the population growth, and in fact, already do in some places, a more prevelant example being China. To be completely honest, overpopulation would happen with or without that 10% of non-reproducing people, so it really doesn't matter. As for the child bans, its already happening in parts of the world (China, again), and controlled birth wouldn't neccesarily cause mass upheval. People are suprisingly maleable when it comes to choosing between screwing like jackrabbits and not starving. Again, I would like to point out that not reproducing, or at least not being available to do so, is a waste of genetic variation. Human beings are supposed to be diverse. Its one of the reasons we are so resiliant as a species. If you aren't going to contribute to it, what is the point of existing, from a functional standpoint. It just creates a resource sinkhole, where resources that could be used to further the human race are siphoned off, then dissapear from the equation. Sincerely,DrRisen (I don't have a kingdom either. I'm more of a constitutional democratic republic kind of guy.)

Title: Birth control Content: As I have already pointed out, the punishment for refusing to fulfill that obligation was not death but public humiliation. So it could not have been for that. God is very merciful, so it seems very unlikely that God would kill someone just for polluting. Yes, contraception allows for planning children but so does NFP. NFP is much more effective than BC, and has no harmful side effects. BC is known to cause breast cancer and many other serious health problems such as blood clots and strokes in very young as well as older women. Couples who use BC have an incredibly high divorce rate, while couples who use NFP have a divorce rate below one percent. So if you cannot financially support a child or you have another just reason to avoid pregnancy than use NFP. Contraception does not reduce the numbers of abortions. Contraception has very high failure rates, but most people are unaware of this, and because of the high availability of contraception there is a much higher number of people having sex than if it was not available, than when the contraception fails, abortion is often seen as the alternative. While it true that condoms can reduce the risk of some STD's they do not protect against the most common STD, HPV, and they actually increase the number of people infected with aids and other STD's for the same reason they increase the number of abortions.

Title: Birth Control Content: No I do not believe that such a mistake should not be avoided. However if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to know if your child was going on prescription medication? I understand that parents should have trust in their children and trust in themselves that they raised them to have good character. So I believe that if a parent uncovered their child sneaking around and intentionally hiding medication and such an important decision from them, the parent would feel their rights are compromised. Until the child turns eighteen, the parents still withholds all rights regarding their child and their life. No matter the maturity level of the child involved, a parent should be notified for the sole reason that their child is going on prescription medication.

Title: Abortion Is Wrong Content: OK lets get started .Sorry for the delay. My first argument was to prove that pregnancy if painful,potentially torturous for a women who doesn't want the child.My question is what right do you have to put that women in torture in order to save a life of a person who she does doesn't even care about .Doesn't the women have the right to decide whether she wants to go through this pain or no t.I believe a women should have control over her own body. Imagine that you wake in the morning, you find yourself connected to a person .the person makes you sick ,the person makes you go through pain .But if you separate form him he will die .i don't think this is a sufficient reason to stay attached to that the person . It's definitely not a sufficient enough reason to force someone else to stay attached to that person. EQUALITY Suppose a women wants to put her career before having the child .She has to take maternity leave .She will get paid paid but wont develop wont get a promotion in that period .While her male counter part might get the promotion . A teen getting pregnant can't put all her efforts into studies while the guy who got her pregnant can study.If she wants to study and be better than the rest she has the right to do so .Further if she thinks she is not ready to go through that pain she has every right not to .

Title: Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Content: Studies shows that condoms and other contraceptives do NOT work 100% and therefore whether or not they are available there will still be the spread of sti's/std's and there will still be a high rate of teenage/unwanted pregnancies. Just the teen knowing that they have access to that contraceptive they will abuse and overuse it therefore not being cautious because in their mind it is "suppose" to make them safe with no risks and so no" what if's" or "worries" are in their minds.

Title: Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in sex education classes. Content: Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, “A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.” 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had “no impactson rates of sexual abstinence.” [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org......[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com......[4] http://www.apa.org......[5] http://thinkprogress.org......[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu......

Title: Incest is NOT Wrong Content: But there is reasonable cause. You stated that "Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it. " which is true, but it goes both ways. If pot was legal, more people without a doubt would do it more. Also, the safeguard you have assumes that Abortion is legal in said country, It's not a easy choice to decide if you want to abort your own child. for teenagers, it's not a "drop in and done" situation. It's a extremely hard choice And teens do use these "safeguards" before sexual intercourse, but it is never a 100% guarantee. Also, there is a significant difference between the gay population, and incest. For instance, If you look all around the world, straight people are almost always the majority in every nation. You said "Some can't afford it - Health insurance. .. Move to Canada. Haha, but seriously, there are other less costly methods of birth control (condoms, birth control pills, plan B pill) and they are available to everyone who can't afford an abortion. " However, condoms, birth control, pills. .. ect do not guarantee you will not get pregnant, so I ask the question what happens to a pregnant girl who is 16 and in School living in a poor family and cannot afford a abortion has a child? Do you arrest the mother? the father? outlaw incest children from becoming born? because of some punishment isn't done, then people will have incest children. In simple, Incest is morally/scientifically wrong because it will encourage sexual activity with family members. Because, why stop at brother and sister? I mean, fathers and mothers can consent to and as long as there is no children born, it's Ok, right. .. .? While there may be "some" who won't have children, don't you think that some will just not care? There are families in America who get torn apart because they have had incest children. I think it takes a strong leap to believe everyone who gets in these relationships "Don't want children" Also why stop at incest? Beastiality could be moral to, for specific animals. The argument against this would be that animals can't "consent" but dogs can choose to penetrate women, and there is no harm to either participants. Morality can be subjective, and based on harm, but it doesn't mean everything that is not harmful is morally Ok. I will end with answering you biggest arguments. 1. "There are just too many safeguards that prevent child birth before and during pregnancies. " As I said, this is not true. You said that if you can't afford abortion use condoms, pills. .. ect but this does not guarantee you will not get pregnant 100% nor does it take into fact in america, you're more likely to have kids if you're in poverty, and 45 million or 14.5 percent of Americans are currently in poverty . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, if a brother gets his sister pregnant more then likely this will be from a poor family who cannot afford abortion. This evidence is more then enough to rule out abortion entirely, since the majority of children born will be to poor families. 2. "You mentioned gay children being in relationships. This is just a slippery slope fallacy, except we know that this slippery slope doesn't go where you say it will. In my opening statement, I explained that the gay community is still a small minority in the population despite homosexuality being legal now. Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it. " But this goes both ways, and is nil. If weed were legal more people would do pot. If murder were legal more people would do it. 3. "Incest is moral, because no harm comes from it. " This is definitely not true. You could say digging up graves, and robbing them is moral because no harm comes from it since they're dead, right? having sex with dogs that consent by choosing to penetrate women is moral because they choose to do that. Right? Just because there is no harm, does not mean it is good or "moral" The main reason as to why incest is wrong, is because of what it does to the kids. You can say "use condoms, pills. .ect" but the majority of kids being born are from poor families/poor. They usually are uneducated on such matters and do it. One of the main reasons of teen pregnancy is Poverty, and Education. So the majority of kids born will be from poor families who cannot afford abortion. There are some morals we should keep with us, and that is Incest is completely wrong. You should not date your father, you brother, your mother, or your sister. These are people you grow up close with and are supposed to protect. Not have a sexual relationship with.

Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. "If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that." I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that "these claims indicate that Cheeriosï¿½ is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be ‘used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for ‘safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts "…companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company." This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment "would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between ‘drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.

Title: Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in adolescent sex education classes. Content: Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, “A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.” 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had “no impactson rates of sexual abstinence.” [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...

Title: Partial Birth Abortion Content: I maintain that while protection (birth control pills, condoms, etc.) is one way to not have a baby and still have sex, so is abortion. While you contend that they 'should' have used protection, I contend that a couple is not limited to simply these choices. I could eat steak tonight. I could eat fried rice. I could eat cereal, fruit, or hot pockets. While these options may not all have the same outcomes, and indeed some may be worse than others, they are all viable choices for me to make. You'd be mistaken to assert that I 'should' eat one rather than the other, just as you're mistaken in asserting that a couple 'should' use protected sex rather than having an abortion. Which method of not having a baby is the choice of the couple in question, and abortion is but one of these choices.

Title: Preventive Health Care Content: Condom. Sex Ed. Birth control. These words are enough to send people into a frenzy, but why? It seems these days you're unable to tell a cheeky joke without offending someone; not by crudeness, but by a difference of opinions. People say things like "teaching safe sex encourages promiscuity" or "I don't believe in contraceptives, they should be unavailable" I, personally, strongly disagree, and believe I am not alone in this opinion. Safety should always outweigh sensitivity. "Prevention is the greatest cure," my grandmother often said while coating my skin in sunscreen "I cant stop the sun, but I wont let you burn". I believe she would say the same about sexual activity. We can't stop every child. We can't end the curiosity of young people. Instead of attempting the unreliable, we should be preventing negative outcomes. All children need to be educated about the changes in their body, and how to avoid negative experiences (I. Disease, Rape, pregnancy, injury, emotional harm etc.) When a young man becomes sexually active he should have constant access to condoms. If a young woman wants to have it, she ought to have a right to her own choice in birth control as well.

Title: Birth Control Content: I do understand your point about how parents should be aware if their child is doing prescription medication. However, concluding my argument, I still stand by my point that women under 18 should have the right to birth control without parents' consent. In history, during the National Birth Control movement, a right to privacy was established, which meant that women had the right to control their own body. I believe that this right is extended to all women, not just women over 18. It is a young women's own decision to use birth control, and if a girl does not feel comfortable talking to her parents about her sexual activity, I do not believe that should prevent her from a mistake like teenage pregnancy.

Title: Abortion should be outlawed Content: Hello Retrospace18, Let me comment on yout argument: 1)You say that I'm against birth control pills and condoms, because they are killing a baby. That is absaluty wrong. First I wished more people used condoms to stop the spread of AIDS. Also, a offspring isn't formed until the male's sperm fertilizes the egg cell. So, I'm killing sperm because it is in the condom? You have millions of sperm cells that are made plus died every day and they last only a couple of days. Another thing, a man will always be reproductive and a women won't. 2) "Most abortions are in the first 7 weeks of pregnecy and the baby looks like a blob." So are you saying it is okay to kill a baby, because it doesn't look like one? That is just wrong. WHat if our camera aren;t strong enough to depict parts of the body? If we do get a stronger camera and that happens then is it still okay? 3)I would be gald to answer your question on when the women gets pregnet from rape and every time the baby kicks, she'll think of it. I would like to know how she got raped. The only thing I can think of is a guy whos is drunk or high pulls a knife to her neck in a bar or in the city. How would know one no about it and try to stop it? My point with 1.2% of abortions are with kids who are under 15. My point is that is the parents fault. I know of some girls a couple grades higher than mine (around 15 16 years old) are experimenting with their boyfriend. The parents know about this, and are putting her on a brith contol pill. The 1.2% of teens have parents who don'tpay attention. They need to pay attention to their kids. That is a goes with your stat about 80% of pregnet teens dropout. If their parents paid more attention to their kids it wouldn't happen. Here is my propsed penelty if a man gets a woman(s) pregnet after a rape. -A normal jail time plus 5 to 10 months more -Can not get married again -Placed on the sex offender list -Pay a woman(s) all money lost due to they pregnecy plus $20,000 I know you say that "money won't fix emotional pains" and "what if the raper doesn't have any money?" My response to that is the man is a convicted felen and shouldn't do it, so it is his problem if he doesn't have money, he needs to pay her. Also, you liberals(I'm assuming you are one due to your stance on the issues) think that money does solve everything. For example: a person gets into a car accident. They don't get a scratch on them, but they'll sue for millions of dollars(that is a whole nother issue). Sorry for being late, I've been busy.

Title: Late Term Abortion Content: Defense "She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption." I never said she shouldn't have the choice of adoption or keeping the baby, my argument is that late term abortion should also be an option. "She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy." Contraceptives don't always work. You can use birth control pills and condoms, and still get pregnant. "A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy." No, she will not be hurt by delivering the baby. But why should she be forced to? The fetus's property rights should not be placed above those of the mother, especially because it is using the mother's resources. "A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life." If we're going to involve the right to life, then it's reasonable to expect that the same rights are conferred to the mother. She has the right to do what she wishes with her life, and her body. Your sense of what is moral or right shouldn't have anything to do with it, because that's your life. Rebuttal 1. "We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong" You are basing this analogy on your morals. Regardless of how many people agree with them, it does not justify restricting the liberties of those who do not. 2. "better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?'" Maybe it does hurt her in a horrible fashion. You can't quantify such subjective things as hurt and pain, she may be extremely upset because she's pregnant and her family refuses to accept her, or something. Unless you can reliably put yourself in her head and interpret her experiences exactly as she does, you are not qualified to make the statement that it does not hurt her, and you are also unable to make laws based on such statements. "The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks." I have already mentioned circumstances in which the mother would reasonably be unable to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, which you have not refuted. Late term abortions don't necessarily happen simply because the mother wants to have a late term abortion. "The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away." It does not have intrinsic value, there are very few things a baby can do, and none of them particularly useful. Fetuses can't do anything. If anything, it has intrinsic potential, and that potential may never be realized even if it were to live. You advocate restricting a woman's rights based on a possibility. 3. "The woman is a valuable member to society," Her first priority and responsibility is herself an her own well-being. She is an individual first, and a member of society second. "and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly." That doesn't follow from the earlier part of the statement. What is it about that woman being "a valuable member to society" that makes it the state's responsibility to ensure the perfect function of society? Also, you have not demonstrated that a perfectly-functioning society is possible, that it is the state's responsibility, or that it cannot involve any late term abortions. This is really just an assertion. "A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion." The fetus is not innocent; it is in someone else's body using their resources. If I were to break into your house and steal your food, you would understandably want me out. You would also be justified in using force to accomplish that. The same principle applies in abortions. The fetus also fails to fit the description of a valuable member of society, in that it contributes nothing. Rather, it is the woman who contributes to society. As she is the one contributing to society, it would make sense that her rights should be the ones protected by society.

Title: Presidential Debate: Lannan13 vs. TBA Content: AbortionLet's take abortion and throw it away from politics. It doesn't belong in government alright. We shouldn't dictate what a women can and can't do nor should we say that churches must have birth control pills for their employees. How do we throw this dead issue from politics? That's easy, we sell birth control pills like condoms.2. Gay MarriageLook I couldn't care less about gay marriage, but gay marriage is protected in the constitution in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ". So with the exception of zoophilia, necrophilia, and those bizarre one's the constitution allows it.3. Voting rightsWhy do we still have hundreds of dead people registered to vote? What are the states doing? ! Look its the states' job to make sure that voting fraud doesn't occur so it's not the president's job but congress's to fix this mess.4. Foreign PolicyIran and Israel. .. So if I get a call by the Israeli prime minister saying that their jets are bombing Iranian nuclear facilities I'd be like the hell? ! Look the Iranian's are dying for an excuse to paint Israel and the US as legit evil, and we're denying them that painting right now with the status quo. Look, we got the Stuxnet and several cpu viruses to delay them until a more permanent solution is ready, and 'sides we're waiting for a legitimate excuse to rip through Iranian soil. Now the Syrian Rebels are a group the US ought to help, but until they get rid of al qaida elements we got our hands tied when it comes to assistance for them. North Korea is a dying state, their desperate for an ICBM but we'll deny them that by keeping up pressure through the UN. Worst case scenario we wait for the North Koreans to commit another of its aggressions and we push through with the South Koreans. 5. Welfare and Social SecurityKeep 'em both, but reform Social security to make sure that the people still have their 401k6. Drones Keep 'em rolling, I want those little uavs up in the air hitting terrorists hard. Refine it and we got land based drones so our troops won't be in harms way.7. DeficitOk we'll stick with fiat cash, but here's the thing, we penalize American businesses taking jobs out of America for their profit. Make 'em bring back jobs in the states. Reform the education system so we'll send out future "white-collar workers" instead of cheap unskilled labor. Then pay back the debt gradually through taxes on the rich, with a combination of closing loop holes and some spending cuts on unnecessary programs.8. Electoral CollegeThe electoral college is designed to prevent a mobocracy. Since the electoral college is doing its job I say let's keep it. 9. Gun ControlOk, I am for gun control, but not for taking away guns. See we should have extensive criminal background checks, mandatory mental health check ups, mandatory gun safety, and making sure that those with guns do not show or give access to guns to those not ready for guns as was the case for the Sandy Hook shootings. The POS gun man killed his mother in her sleep and then took the guns. Unless she had properly placed those guns under lock and key and hid them from that POS I doubt this would've happened in Sandy Hook Elementary. My running mate is. .. .. .. .. Back from the dead Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Title: life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion Content: the points about birth control not always working doesn't really work too well here, cause we are talking about later in pregnancy. later in pregnancy, she assumed the issue of carrying the child by not aborting when it was morally grayer. she also assumed the risk of getting pregnant. you didn't respond to the hypothetical... if you cause an accident and someone is attached to you and can't get unattached for a number of months, no reasonabel person would say you can kill the person you became attached to. i also could allow rape exceptions as mentioned, so it was pointless for you to mention it. how does the value of allowing a mother time to decide if she wants to keep it trump a human life? if an exception like rape or health doesn't apply as mentioned. not knowing you are pregnancy almost never is an issue in late pregnancy. i would just chalk it up to luck of the draw for the woman though if she didnt know till later. she still assumed the risk of pregnancy and there's soemthing to be said about her lack of periods and keeping in tune with what's going on. (recgonizing not all woman have periods due to birth control etc) so are you suggesting a woman with no traditinoal exception like health, should be able to abort her child a week before her due date, just because she wants to? if you say no, then you agree with teh resolution, the woman sometimes DOESNT get what she wants. you were just trying to poke holes in something. at best we'd just make better laws to accommodate those holes, it doesn't mean a woman's choice is absolute, which you seem to be saying by taking this debate etc.

Title: SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission Content: Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments.

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Birth control should be covered because its a medical necessity for women. Viagra is covered for men because its seen as being medically necessary to treat men with erectile dysfunction but women who have certain forms of vaginal cancer are not being covered for birth control which helps treat their condition, thus making this problem into a very sexist issue. Birth control is used as way to protect a woman's body from an unwanted pregnancy, a protection which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the equal rights amendment also warrants women with equal rights as men under the law. This is not just about being sexist this is also about women's health. And insurance companies not covering birth control is simply saying women and their health are not important.

Title: Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation Content: The modest proposal will not work The modest proposal of devouring the children of the poor is not going to work still based on the rate of reproduction and hsi source (http://www.guttmacher.org...) actually supports my argument and states that "Abortions are increasing in poor women." We still see the inevitability of the birth rates even with high abortion rates. So this argument still stands as valid. My counter-plan My counter plan would still work because it would get rid of what he describes as the poor class and leaving only the people making more than 1.25 dollars a day left in the world. Also, we would not be overrun if we did it by a region by region basis. If this ever seemed to be a problem, it would be very easy to destroy them with our non-radioactive weapons. A new world order would arise for the rich. My arguments still stand unrefuted. Killing them off is much better than eating them!

Title: SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission Content: THIS IS OR A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT, I DONT THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BEECAUSE, IT CAN BE DANGEROUS TO THE GIRL WETHER IT'S ABORTION OR PILLS, OR ANYTHING. AND YIT IS AGAINST gOD

Title: Sex education not be made compulsory in school. Content: "Even if there was a drop in pregnancies, the U.S. still remains with the highest rate in teen pregancies in the western world." All the more reason to keep at the education. Currently, 83.5% of teenagers use condoms, pills, injections, or vaginal rings to protect against pregnancy, and only 12.9% had used no birth control in their last sexual encounter [1]. When this statistic is placed in the context of the correlation between mandatory sexual education, and teenage pregnancies by state, there is strong evidence to suggest that sexual education decreases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies [2]. "And wouldn't common sense tell you that encouraging them to go have sex would lead to a greater risk at catching a STD, despite them wearing a contraceptive? Besides, there is still a chance they could get pregnant either way, with or without the condom." Sex ed doesn't encourage sex, it encourages safe sex practices [3]. Also, of course there will be risks, but there is a reduced risk (I reiterate the strong correlation between contraceptive use and teenage pregnancy). "So, wouldn't it be better for us to teach our kids abstitence only with the consequences they could reap by having sex? This would include statistics that show the high percentage of people in the U.S. with STD's." According to the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, abstinence only education has "not demonstrated successful outcomes with re-gard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices" [4]. Also, your source regarding the alleged decrease in sexual activity from abstinence only education asserts that: "Two years after attending an eight-hour abstinence program, about one-third of the participants had initiated sexual activity, compared to nearly one-half of the non-participants who enrolled in a general health program. That is, the abstinence program reduced the rate of sexual initiation by one-third." One half minus one third is one sixth. Your source can't even do basic math correctly. "Maybe they aren't, but they sure keep you safe and encourage you to drive the vehicle." Exactly, it does keep me safe. As for encouragement, I can't say, as I have never driven any significant distance without wearing it. "No evidence for what? That the statement "There is a less need for children in this world," supports abortion?" Less need for children. Abortion is an entirely other debate. "Actually, there is an increasing percentage of the population which doesn't have family values, and are single parents (divorced and sexually active with people they know). Therfore, that goes along with women leaving there husbands, killing their children (abortion), and becomming lesbians (fragile relationships which leaves each gender mistrusting the other)." That is a non-sequitur (without evidence to support either) to say that a lack of family values causes women leaving their husbands, getting abortions, and becoming homosexual. On that last point especially, homosexuality has genetic causes not (or at least as well as) societal ones [5]. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Note how seven different sources in six citations state that sexual education doesn't increase the onset or frequency of sexual activity). 4. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 5. http://www.nytimes.com...

Title: U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence Content: Rebuttals: You stated, “With proper sex education, these infections could be safely prevented, or at least the rate will be significantly reduced, resulting in better sexual health.” This is a kind of an assumption not supported by any evidence. You just presented statistics on young people involved in sexual intercourse, but never the relationship between sex education to safe sex. Furthermore, in your second point as stated “76.7% of teens did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex. In addition, more than half a million unplanned pregnancies occur to teens each year… What we can conclude is that we can't control whether teenagers have sex, but we can control whether they are safe about it and know how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies.” How can you say that we can control them in having safe sex in preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies? This is another form of an assumption. Where is the study that shows the we can control as such? All you presented were just an fallacious assumption, or if not, claims not supported by evidence. PointsThere are many different groups across the United States advocating for abstinence-only sex education in the schools. They include Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International. These and other proponents of abstinence-only education argue primarily that sex before marriage is inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs.1 Many such groups emphasize that condoms are not fool-proof in preventing pregnancy or STIs, and that sexual activity outside marriage can result in “serious, debilitating, and sometimes, deadly consequences.”2 In addition, many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people.63 These advocates credit the decrease in teenage pregnancy largely to the advancement of the abstinence-only message.3 An article on the Concerned Women for America web site states that “[t]his is not simply an issue of morality, but a matter of public health. The problems that have become so entrenched in our country, such as AIDS, illegitimate births, poverty, increasing crime and the breakdown of the nuclear family, can all be attributed to the debilitating effects of a public policy that condones sex without love or responsibility. … As research clearly indicates, America is not suffering from a lack of knowledge about sex, but an absence of values.”4 Abstinence-only proponents point to studies concluding that the abstinence-only education message has played a central role in the decline of adolescent sexual activity, and related negative health outcomes, over the last decade. One study reports that “…abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.”5Sources: [1] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001. [2] Ibid. [3] Abstinence Clearinghouse. Data confirms that the abstinence message, not condoms, is responsible for the reduction in births to teens [Internet]. May 17, 1998. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=168. Accessed October 16, 2001. [4] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001[5] Jones JM, Toffler W, Mohn JK, et al. The declines in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the 1990s: What factors are responsible? A special report commissioned by The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils [Internet]. January 7, 1999. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=224. Accessed October 16, 2001.

Title: Abortion Content: Thanks, Con, for beginning this debate. I'll begin by responding to your R1 contentions in numerical order. In the second round I'll make a case for my side (more in depth) and then I'll conclude and re-cap all of the final arguments in R3. 1. "No life should be taken,without probable cause." Con did not even begin to defend this assertion. 2. "Even if they are in someone inside a person who doesn't want them, because the person couldn't properly or didn't even try to use the pill or some other medication that will prevent pregnancy." Not only is this statement grammatically incoherent, it's also incorrect. Con assumes that every woman who gets pregnant is not on birth control or did not use a form of contraception. That is not necessarily true at all. Women get pregnant who are on the pill and who ensure that their partners wear condoms. Birth control is not 100% effective. Additionally, Con is leaving out the women who get pregnant from rape, date rape, etc. 3. "Is it not an injustice to kill someone, the law to stop it from happening, is it the death penalty not protested everyday, let me ask what's the difference." Again, this statement makes absolutely no sense. I think my opponent was trying to say that abortion and murder are the same thing, when in fact they are not. Abortion is the the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy [1]. Murder is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law [2]. Abortion is not considered murder under law, and with good reason. Murder is the taking of a person's life. An embryo or fetus is not a person. It is a "potential" person, which is not the same thing. 4. "Some say 'hey its not alive yet' it is alive the moment the sperm cells met the egg its alive." Yes, a fetus is alive. It's still not a person. 5. Some say 'It don't have a soul or state of being or opinion' well how do you know. Can anyone prove this? Yes. Living babies aren't capable of having complex thoughts, let alone unborn fetuses. This can easily be proven with a brain scan and monitoring one's brain waves. Additionally, I do not believe in a soul but that is neither here nor there, as a soul is irrelevant to my position. I'll leave it at that for now; Con is free to make any clarifications and I will expand on my position further in the second round. Good luck, Con, and thanks again. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Title: Antibiotics should be heavily restricted. Content: Thanks to my opponent for clarifying his argument and providing the meat of his side in this debate, and now it's time to dig in! I'd like to start by pointing out that both of my arguments go dropped in this round. I'll get into why they matter over the course of my responses. Pro talks about how prescriptions should determine who gets to take antibiotics. I agree, and this is why most antibiotics are prescription only. A few "natural" antibiotics are over the counter,[1] but as they're not fungal-derived, the resistance they engender doesn't affect the majority of available antibiotics. More importantly, my argument about how doctors prescribe antibiotics to treat viral infections stands showcases the problem with letting doctors have free reign to decide what is prescribed. As Pro hasn't outlined any restrictions on their practices, the harms continue, but they even get worse since now everyone's going to rely on seeing a doctor about any infection instead of pursuing over the counter meds. Pro talks about animals being given them. Again, I agree, though if you deny farmers access to them, they will simply pursue other methods, such as steroids and hormones, to beef up their herds. This will only make things worse. We know they're cancer threats, but it's also got a wide swath of uncertainties, with many possible deleterious health outcomes for humans and cattle.[2] Lastly, overuse. Interesting that he cites mayoclinic.org, a link very close to the one I used, but doesn't appear to have read it thoroughly. There's no mention of overuse, just misuse, which often results when patients stop taking their meds early (or being prescribed them for viral infections). High concentrations of antibiotic are actually far more likely to kill even a resistant bacteria.[3] 1. http://medsnoprescriptiononline.com... 2. http://www.phschool.com... 3. http://www.pnas.org... Good debate.

Title: Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children Content: I believe that, barring extraneous circumstances (such as health), women who declare they do not want children should find it mandatory to take birth control (specifically of an implant-type) if they wish to be sexually active. The mandatory length of commitment is 1-year and is reevaluated annually. I believe this would greatly reduce accidental pregnancy.

Title: The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women Content: I am sorry, I do not know the proper etiquette for a forfeited situation...

Title: Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family Content: I believe that Government should have control over births of children in family. You just cannot reproduce how many times you want to... The authority should rest in the hands of government. Although one child must be allowed compulsorily.

Title: It is a contradicting for a person to stand against the death penalty and favor late term abortions. Content: "Some women aren't ready to mother children, or go through the pain of childbirth. Abortion is a good alternative, no matter how brutal it may be." They aren't ready for children and the responsibility but they are ready for intercourse followed up by an abortion? "Birth control is 99.9% effective, and many people use condoms to prevent pregnancies. Accidents DO happen, and if they do, it's good to have a logical alternative besides childbirth to fall back on. An accidental pregnancy is a pregnancy which was not planned. So instead of a married couple planning a baby, which would be a planned pregnancy, a woman may be raped, or a condom may break which leads to an unwanted baby, which is an accidental pregnancy." Abstinence is 100% effective. Also, the topic we are debating is late-term abortions, therefore your comment regarding a woman being raped is off topic and should be disregarded as this wouldn't require a late term abortion. As far as a condom breaking, there are morning after pills in this case. "Sometimes a person is placed in jail for a crime which they did not commit, but cannot prove they didn't commit the particular crime. If you have ever seen the movie "Shawshank Redemption," the main character is an excellent example of this." The Shawshank Redemption is a fictional movie therefore no events can be used off this film as this never actually happened. Fictional movies are not to be used in a debate to prove a point. Also, in America, we have a policy called "Innocent until proven guilty" which means you do not have to prove you didn't do it in order to be found innocent. "Being pro choice and anti death penalty is not contradicting however, because they are two separate things. Abortion is an alternative to childbirth, it is not mandatory, it is optional, and the option should always be there for a pregnant woman. The death penalty kills the innocent and guilty alike, and therefore is morally wrong. My views on abortion would be different if it were mandatory, but it isn't. It's the womans decision, body and it should be respected." The difference between late term abortions and the death penalty is that late term abortions only kill the innocent by the decision of one person while the death penalty only kills those found guilty through the decisions of many individuals based on proper court procedures. Another question for you, is if a man is required to pay child support why can the man not make the decision to force an abortion as he is just as financially responsible for the child as the mother? So if he isn't ready but she is, it is just his loss? That seems to be a form of sexism as only females can choose abortions, what happened to equal rights under the law regardless of gender, nationality, religion, etc.?

Title: Public Funded Birth Control Content: I suppose my argument will have to be that the public as a whole through the government should fund nothing of the sort, and that only the select group of people who want to fund it ought to.

Title: The World Needs a One Child Policy Content: Great, we're almost done. I want to get this over with. We're not in that hot a stew. Nobody is going to implement a one child policy anytime soon, only when everything becomes insane. Then we'll worry about that. We have time, though, to try and stop something like that before it happens. We can educate people about the horrors of overpopulation. We can give sex ed classes. We can dole out birth control pills. We don't need a one child policy at the current moment and I don't think we will until at least 2100. Again, you compare us to China. But we're not China. And neither are most of the other 165 countries on the planet. Lots of countries AREN'T overpopulated. Have you seen Canada? Just miles and miles of Arctic tundra. They don't need to implement a one child policy. One Child Policies, again, should only be put forth when there's a serious problem. If a country is on the verge of becoming Mad Max, then they should enforce a one child policy. If not, people should get to have as many kids as they want. Keep in mind, judges, we aren't talking about abortion. This is something much more insane. And then you go on about how horrible China's one child policy was, and you point out its flaws. Please, stay on your own side. If you're all in favor of one child policies, don't go into how they create mental illness and sex trafficking. You're fighting yourself there. Do you even know how to debate? Yeah, then you talk about how Japan needs more kids than they have. Are you crazy or something? Why do you bring up arguments like this if you just decide that they suck in the end? You're probably going to lose, but I don't care, I'm done with the whole thing, One Child Policies suck, you care too much about polar bears, you want to execute parents who have more than one kid, you overestimate the dangers of overpopulation, and so on. Yadda yadda yadda. I'm outta here.

Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: Err, thanks for debating I guess.

Title: Adopt China's Planned Birth Policy Globally Content: They gave me a good laugh. Let's go through them paragraph by paragraph to critically analyze them. ----- First paragraph: You so soundly say that overpopulation is a serious issue, but then say that you would instead find other solutions. Well, what other solutions besides birth control prevent more births? Is that not the definition of birth control? You yourself said that abortion shouldn't be used, so again. If my plan is ineffective, and abortion isn't either, how else can we prevent overpopulation? I find this argument rather ridiculous therefore debunking the rest of your support for it. However, I am considerate so I will see to responding to your following paragraphs. Second paragraph: Yes, perhaps prevention of children is unnatural now, but to that I provide two arguments. One, should unnaturalness mean the extinction of the human species? And two, why is China not revolting to this policy? John Phillip Sousa denounced the record player and Bill Gates once thought the personal computer to be intangible, so perhaps now it seems odd. But you yourself do not refute the grave seriousness of overpopulation, so would a small pay in, really not be expected to survive? Another point you make, is that family survival would be "greatly reduced". What happened to human survival that you so soundly supported? And to add to that, in a modern society, family survival is no longer a real question in many people's mind. Third paragraph: Are you honestly stating that families run our modern day farming society? Modern agriculture is actually run by machines, illegal immigrants, and truckers. I doubt the hundreds of people working in the fields in a farm are all blood related. Heck, I doubt that more than a few are related to the owners if that. We live in this thing called the twenty-first century. Please remember that next turnaround. Fourth paragraph: What crabjuicer does here, is provide no evidence or logic. We already are vastly approaching the big seven, and we have yet to find an answer. As stated before, by 2050 we'll have a third more minds. Yes significant, but do we really want to postpone half a century just to increase the chances of one genius getting an epiphany no one has thought about before? Why not act now, and NOT gamble with our chances? It's only logical. Fifth paragraph: You are correct that no method is perfect. However, if the girl takes the pill, the guy uses a condom, and they both have had sex education, at most, there is only a .04% chance they could possibly get a baby for a whole year using the highest statistics to be found. Combine this with other methods, and it is virtually impossible for the girl to get pregnant. So again, nothing is perfect, but things can be prevented to save the human species. ----- Here is where the debate stands: 1. We both agree on the point that overpopulation is a serious issue. The only difference lies that I believe action needs to be taken, while crabjuices believes that we should take other actions besides abortion and birth control. He has not provided what actions besides waiting half a century. 2. Other minor jabs have been made including the discovery that crabjuices is not knowledgeable about modern agriculture. ----- In conclusion, I have provided evidence to show that overpopulation is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I believe we need birth control, while crabjuices believes that we should take other actions that our as of now secret to himself. Voters, realize the argument that is baseless here.

Title: high school students should be required to take a basic medical class Content: I admire the proposal made by the Pro, however I see a lot of flaws in this proposal which is why I accepted this debate. "proposal: students should required to graduate with basic first aid,and over the counter drug knowledge."If we require students to get basic first aid and over the counter medication training then we would have to fit that course into an already crammed curriculum students deal with in High school, and the teachers needed to teach the course, materials needed for it, etc would be a burden on school budgets. If schools try to cut their budgets and cut funding from these med classes it could cause the level of education to become so sub-standard that it may cause students to do more harm then good when the situation comes. "civilians can increase there chances of survival if they know basic first aid."They can also do quite a bit of harm though. Think about it if a student knows basic medical training and when helping a person has a choice between trying to be a hero and actually calling for help, that person might put the victims life on the line for a shot of being a hero...................... It would be sort of like a little kid in a weight training class trying to lift a heavy thing off of someone because they think they can pull it off instead of calling someone to do it for them who is way more experienced and qualified..................... (I apologize for the F word being in there but I couldnt find a different picture of a baby trying to lift a ridiculously large amount)Point is medical training could cause harm if it empowers students to become cocky enough to try to fix it themselves rather than call a professional and just try to but time until they show up. "If a person knows to stop the bleeding then they wont bleed to death by the time paramedics get there."Just how serious medical training are we talking about him? I could under stand maybe a broken bone or some burns but stopping lethal blood loss sounds like something that no student could learn in one class in one year...." How can a person help if they don't know what to do."Should we also teach kids how to be firefighters in case of a fire or detectives to find criminals too? Its a noble idea dont get me wrong but this might be a tipping point to try to teach students to learn to fix anything, and that would be a hopeless battle for our underfunded school system to handle. "Basic pharmacology should also be introduced."Pharmacology: The study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function First off, I dont think we should be telling high school students anything about prescription medicine and over-the-counter drugs since theres a growing trend about high school students using those same things to get high. http://www.health.ny.gov...http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...http://www.life123.com...http://www.reuters.com...http://www.momlogic.com...http://zev.hubpages.com...http://www.fox16.com...http://www.infowars.com...http://www.talkaboutrx.org...http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com...Im not trying to saturate this debate with sources, prescription drug abuse is a SERIOUS problem among high schools, and I dont think its good to give kids a COURSE about drugs they could then use to get stoned on...."if students are required to learn basic over the counter drug skills then we could save lots of money"Wait a sec, wait a sec............ I thought the goal here was to help students save lives not become savvy shoppers..... I for one dont think we should put a larger burden on schools just to help students be saavy shoppers when it comes down to prescription drugs they could get high off of...

Title: Birth control within monogamous relationships. Content: The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception.

Title: The punishment for failing to follow the rules would infringe on women's right to control their own bodies. Content: Unplanned pregnancies happen. They happen with IUD's and with birth control pills. Many women, including pro-choice women, strongly believe that abortion would be committing a murder. Forcing abortion on such women would be a violation of their body and their values. Further, if you tax families that have more than one child, you're essentially punishing the child for the sins of the parent. (i.e. you're lowering their standard of living as punishment for being born.) That hardly seems fair. Allow society to have unlimited access to reliable birth control. Encourage women to go to college and have careers. We've already seen negative population growth in countries that follow that type of policy. Japan can't get her people to reproduce enough to sustain their economy. The same holds true for many European countries. There's no need to violate people's right to their very body in order to control human population. Social factors already serve as a regulating force.

Title: Abortion is wrongly sought as an alternative form of birth control Content: Kristin Luker, Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept (1975) - "In short, there are no empirical grounds for assuming that women have an à priori preference for contraception over abortion."[27] In other words, women see abortion as a suitable alternative to birth control.

Title: life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion Content: The rights of a fetus should not be able to over rule the mothers rights. Sometimes birth control, condoms, and other things don't work 100% of the time. Why should someone be punished for having sex? It's natural. Also, not all the time the mother assumes the risks. What if she was raped? Sometimes, not all the time she assumes risk for carrying the child. What if her birth control didn't work, and she didn't know she was pregnant? Why shouldn't a mother be able to chose if she decides to keep the baby or have an abortion? She might not want to decide right after she got pregnant. She might want to take some time to decide if she wants tow if she really wanted an abortion or if she wants a child. What if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? What if she only found out in late pregnancy? That shouldn't mean she shouldn't have different rights than a mother who found out quicker. Again, her birth control might have not worked and she didn't figure out until late pregnancy.

Title: Banning the Pill Content: Whether it is a contraceptive or not is not in dispute. I am more concerned with the irresponsibility that will be created if those that are over 17 years old have easy access to the pill especially when that are under 16 years old could easily ask someone who is 17 years old to get them the pill or even worse their partner who could be of age and get it for them. Therefore, the morning pill should banned.

Title: The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women Content: Final push...thank god.

Title: Resolved: Information on birth control ought be included in sex education classes Content: And it's all over!

Title: Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps... Content: Women may not have a choice, even if contraception allows them the option of reproductive control. In many developing nations, there can be a cultural preference for sons over daughters, religious pressure to have as many children as possible, and a traditional male dominance in sexual relationships and family planning decisions. Birth control may not even be socially acceptable. Even if contraception allowed a woman the potential for biological control over childbearing, these factors can prevent her from exercising this new-found choice. It is also unclear if women’s rights are advanced by contraception. In reality, contraception typically forms part of a wider population control policy by national government. Such policies (e.g. China’s one-child policy), when considered as a whole, often violate the women’s rights that advocates of contraception claim to value so highly.

Title: Abortion is a woman's right Content: Thanks to Andromeda_Z for her intriguing round! Alright, let's jump right into it. Pro Case:1. My opponent denies that a risk is assumed in pregnancy and that parents arent necessarily aware that a zygote will be created. Now, I admit that a zygote "will" be created, but that's just about semantics. I quote Chuz-Life from his debate with with xxx00:""I think" that an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an "assumption of risk" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings. Every over the counter birth control we have comes with the warning that they are not 100% effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. This assumption of risk by both individuals implies a known consent for the pregnancy because the risks for pregnancy were known (or should have been known) and the parties chose to gamble with that as a possible consequence of their actions. " [. http://www.debate.org...]Not to use his quote as an argument from authority, but he sums it up pretty well. Yes, I admit, there are many courses of action to be taken in order to prevent an unwanted pregancy, but they are not fullproof. Just like my opponent admits, pregnancy can still results from attempting to negate the possible risks, but that does not make abortion permissible. Car Accident Analogy:My opponent's analogy compares driving a car to consensual sex, taking safety precautions in driving to taking precautions to not become pregnant, and finally she compares obtaining an abortion to obtaining a prosthetic limb. Okay, I agree with my opponent, in that, taking safety precautions in driving is essentially the same thing as taking precautions not to get pregnant. My objection stems from the second part of what she said. She said, "they ought to live with the lifelong complications of that missing limb (instead of obtaining a prosthetic limb) because they chose to drive a car. " I think that my opponent agrees that the person driving is responsible for their condition of being without a leg if they caused (assuming someone else didn't cause the accident) themselves to be in that condition. My problem with this argument is that it falsely compares the desire to have an abortion to the desire to want a prosthetic limb. As said before, abortion comes at the cost of another's life/future and is therefore, immoral. Wanting to obtain a prosthetic limb is nothing like this. The only way for my opponent's analogy to work is if she can justify killing someone else and severing their and using it as their own. This seems more akin to what my opponent is saying. Tell me, Pro. .. . since you support killing someone else to alleviate yourself of your condition (pregnancy), then do you also support killing someone else and taking their leg from them because you are required to get rid of your condition you put yourself in? Thusly, I propose a scenario to you. .. . If an adult female were to accidently knock a helpless infant into deep water, then should she be held legally obligated to save said infant even IF she has to use her body in a way she doesn't want to to do so. Case law would recognize this negligence as manslaughter [. http://sixthformlaw.info...]. The woman shouldn't be able to shoot the infant to alleviate herself of her obligation towards the infant for putting the infant in said position of vulnerability. Homeless Trespasser Analogy:Note to my opponent. .. . as I said before, pregnancy resulting from consensual sex isn't as simple as someone "wandering" onto your property. For my opponent's argument to apply to her position she must show how it would be okay for the owner of the house to drag the homeless person onto his/her property, kill the homeless person, and then claim self-defense. Because, this seems a bit closer to what weare discussing than simply "wandering" onto your property.2. Dropped. Clean extension. Con Case:FLO ArgumentMy opponent has thoroughly and utterly dropped that my claim that abortion denies one a FLO and by extension, drops that it is immoral, so I have essentially won this point. She simply points out that not aborting is "less immoral" than aborting, because not aborting also denies one a FLO. To address this I shall ask a question. What does it mean to be denied a FLO? Well Don Marquis sums it up pretty well. He says, "The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of abortion. The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong. " [Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, The Journal of Philosophy, 86:4]As we can see, a meaningful future is not necessarily one that is literally meaningful it is simply "a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. " Not aborting doesn't deny women a meaningful futre because it doesn't kill them, abortion does kill and deny one a future. My opponent is simply playing semantics with the term "meaningful future. " Moral justification My opponent's moral justification is not legitimate, as explained above. And, since it isn't legitimate and my reason that abortion is wrong means that it is not within a woman's right to abort. Thank you. In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, including her interesting arguments and rebuttals. I think that I have thoroughly covered both the Con and Pro cases and I will leave it to the voters to decide. Resolution Negated.

Title: Males are superior to females Content: Unfortunately, I will not be capable of accessing my computer before the clock wineds down, so I am posting this from my phone, forcing me to keep it short. I will condense my three sections into one conclusion. CONCLUSION On the argument over reproduction, Pro simply restates his previous assertion and does not disprove my counter-argument. That's the equivalent of making "you're wrong" an argument. Pro does the same thing later in the argument over height and intelligence. I explained why controlling for height in IQ tests is a valuable tool for evaluating cognitive differences between genders and Pro gave no clear argument for how I could be wrong. In the argument over health, Pro concedes that women live much longer than men and yet in the same breath claims they are less healthy than men, citing that they are more likely to have certain illnesses than men, which I had previously shown the opposite of. Nevermind the fact that the illnesses I showed are for more widespread and fatal than Pro's. This is basically saying " X type of car has better durability than Y type of car because, even though it breaks down sooner, it's more durable when it's working...in some ways and not in other ways". In the argument over grades and intelligence, Pro reasserts that grades are not indicative of intelligence and this time posts a source, as I asked. The source he gives is frankly bull. The source is a very short opinion article which cites absolutely zero material evidence for the claim. On the issue of single mothers being more likely to inflict child abuse than single fathers, the point is null until it can be shown that single mothers would do this because they are female. Just as in the IQ issue, it is subject to variables that have not been adjusted. Single mothers are more likely to be poor than single fathers due to continued discrimination in employers. Poorer homes are more likely to have child abuse. There are many other factors that could be the cause as well. The point is that nothing can be concluded from the correlation alone. I gave actual psychological reasons that men are obsevered to be so much more aggressive than women, unlike Pro for otherwise. This concludes the debate. Pro has given a good shot for a first debate. I encourage him to work on appropriate sourcing. I encourge voters to vote based on the debating efficiency displayed here, not on personal opinion and to not vote at all if they have not properly read the debate.

Title: Drug Legalization Content: So you want to argue agains the FDA? Great. Are you aware that the FDA manages the many medicines given to children? After all, children also require medicine just as much as adults do. Now, let us pose a hypothetical situation where the FDA was non-existant. The over the counter drugs, now contain harmful substances. Now, one specific spray-on drug, contains DDT, a substance which is known to cause cancer. The item in question, has its ingredients labeled, however, according to FDA standards, a drug must also label its possible side effects as well as banning those drugs which has more harmful results than good results(1). .. Woops! The FDA doesnt exist. Congratulations. Youve flooded the market with a drug that does more harm than good. This is what you fail to understand. The FDA doesnt exist to only ban drugs that have some harmful side effects. After all, ANY drug can have harmful side effects. However, the FDA exists to protect the population, a population which is ignorant of terms such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or arsenic. This is why the specific process of the FDA, is to first, legalize a drug for prescription purposes only, so that DOCTORS with medical degrees who understand the terminology, and side effects, can hand out these drugs to the patients who are both required, and who are suitable to receive these drugs. The FDA also PREVENTS these drugs that have MORE harm than benefits, from reaching the population in the first place. It is too late for a drug company to be indited for fraud and mislabeling, if the product has already reached a million people. Your position is absurd. By arguing against the FDA, you have essentially made every drug, an over the counter drug. If the general public was educated enough to understand the risks involved, as well as to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm, then we wouldnt need doctors anymore. It is their own choice. However, there is a difference between choice, and an INFORMED consent. 1. ". .. .it would have a label that says, "Warning: Causes Brain Damage. ""-You Sorry. The FDA is the regulatory committee which has placed statutes as to what a label should include. (2) In other words, the FDA will only approve a drug, after studying both the clinical trials, and the proposed warning label on the Drug. If the drug does not have sufficient warnings, or fails to warn a potential hazard, the drug is pulled and the FDA bans it until it is fixed. ". .. it would say, "Warning: Untested. ""-You Again, sorry. The FDA regulates what is placed on a label. Without it, it is up to the discretion of the Drug company whether to warn the user. There is nothing to stop the company from lying. Nor is there a reason to ban the drug if the drug blatantly lied, according to your view of not banning any drugs. Sure, the company could possibly receive a penalty or a fine. But the drugs would stay nonetheless. If the public is lucky, this will become a scandal, and people will know about the drug, atleast those who are smart enough to watch the news. If not, millions of people will continue to use the drug. "So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal? "-You First, several combinations of drugs can be harmful. However, most of these drugs which are harmful if taken together with another, are prescription drugs. Therefore, only a doctor understands the risks. However, if we make them all over-the-counter drugs, then there is no way for the general public to understand what combination of drugs are harmful. This is also why not many drugs have the lethal combinations written on the label, because there are just too many to list. Second, not everyone has an internet. Not everyone uses the internet. Not everyone has the time to look up every drug combination and its alternative names. Not everyone reads the label. If Nyquill suddenly placed a harmful agent into its liquid gel caps, how many people do you think, will take the time to read the "Warning, may cause severe drowsiness, stomach pain, headache, and potential cancer"? Hell, Ive never read the warning on my Advil bottle. 2. "if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead. "-You Awesome. So you dont care about the homeless, the druggies, and rehab centres and all that? Clearly youve never had a family member who was a drug addict. "Plus, it only speeds up natural selection"-you Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so dont try and comment on it. I cant believe youre making the following argument. "the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die. "-You Congratulations. Now youve lost. First off, Suicide is not a trait that is inhereted. And neither is stupidity. Einsteins children are not Nobel prize winners. So, your absurd notion that allowing these people to die, is for the benefit of mankind, will do nothing to eliminate this "trait" from the gene pool. Again, you know nothing of evolution. Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. Your "live and let die" approach will be throwing these people to the graves. 3. Congratulations. What you are asking is banning drugs. Therefore, our discussion is over. Youve just admitted that we need to ban drugs if they produce harm to other people. This is basically your argument. And congratulations, that is the EXACT reason why we ban drugs. We ban them because of their ability to harm NOT ONLY the user, but also the people around them. (3) This is the point about drugs. While you are taking them, you are not lucid. Therefore, you might walk outside, beleive that the old lady accross the street is a demon, and kill her. Unless you have a room that has no windows, and have it locked from the outside, could you possibly be sure that you will not harm anyone. As for my opponents arguments: 1. Yes, i agree that anyone who wants to do whatever to their body, is allowed to. I agree that someone has the right to kill themselves. But guess what? It is illegal to suicide by jumping off a tower. The reason being, you are not only harming yourself, but you are also potentially harming others. By jumping off the tower, you might land on someone else, killing them along with you. This is the exact reason why drugs are banned. Its your own choice to destroy your body. But it is not your choice to harm others in the process. We have tons of instances were people who are under the influence of drugs, do things like rape, walk around naked, and kill other people. And all it takes is a little dose. This is different than things like alchohol, as Alchohol is not nearly as addictive as cocaine, bars can actually refuse to sell you alchohol if they believe you to be intoxicated, and being high completely changes your personality to the point that you believe you are the terminator, Sent back in time from the future. (4) Ive never seen a person get so drunk that he believes he is a fictional character from a movie. And by believe, i mean TRULY believe. So in other words, yes, he is doing anything bad, because he is placing nearby people at risk, at severe risk. Sources: 1. . http://www.fda.gov... 2. . http://www.cancer.org... 3. . http://www.newsday.com... 4. . http://uk.movies.yahoo.com...

Title: Banning the Pill Content: The morning after pill should not be banned. P1. It is true that the morning-after pill may act as a contraceptive; if it is taken before ovulation, it may act to prevent conception. http://www.prolifephysicians.org... P2. It can act for emgergencies for mistakes that a person may have done the night before P3. Everyone should be responsible for their actions Conclusion. The morning after pill should be available for eveveryone because its their life and their actions that impact their life, nobodys elses.

Title: Ability can change, personality can't. Content: How can you believe that we have no control over our personality and therefore should not be judged for it? If we come across someone who is a nasty person, mean, scrupulous, we do not automatically think that they are born that way and forgive them. People do have control over their personality, people can choose who they want to be. To argue differently is to argue for the counter intuitive; opposite to how we all naturally think.

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Arguments extended.

Title: Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation) Content: If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified.

Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: I am not debateing teaching absitence or birthcontrol in schools...i am debateing why it shouldnt be GIVEN OUT in schools.

Title: Birth control Content: First, a Google Translate translation of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (2 Samuel 6:6-7) "(6) And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Uzza put out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, oxen in the play came out. (7) against the indignation of the Lord was angry with Oza, and struck him for his rashness; and he died there beside the ark of God."This is obviously wrong about the "oxen in the play came out" bit, according to every other Bible I have ever read, it's supposed to say something like "because the oxen stumbled". Other than that, it is sufficient. I would appreciate it if my opponent could in turn show me where in the Bible the punishment for using birth control was laid out. 1. Failure ratesOf course you can easily screw it up. You can even more easily screw up NFP. Refer to my source. I am positive that the pill does not have an 8 percent failure rate with perfect use, perhaps with imperfect uses factored in it may average to 8%. I have found a source that supports my opponent's figures, but clearly shows NFP with a much greater failure rate [1]. I highly doubt that NFP has a below one percent effectiveness rate, and my claim of this is bolstered by my opponent's lack of sources.2. Pill CancerMost research appears to support the conclusion that after you stop taking the pill, the risks go back down. Additionally, the pill protects against some types of cancer [2]. 3. Condom CancerAs my opponent's source does not link me to the article in question, I cannot address this argument fully. For now, I will merely quote my opponent's own source "Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber contraceptives based on results of the study because N-Nitrosamine does not present an immediate health danger.". 4. Condoms and HPVMy source from last round disagrees, claiming it does provide some protection against HPV. Even if they don't protect against HPV, my opponent has not contested that condoms provide protection against a variety of other STDs. Contrast this with NFP, which provides no protection against any STDs. 5. NFP and DivorceI will merely quote the second line of my opponent's source here. "First, couples with strong relationships may be more likely than other couples to choose to practice NFP.". That is to say, couples use NFP because they have strong relationships, not they have strong relationships because they use NFP. This supports my argument. In addition, this means nothing for two people who are not a couple. 6. Abortions I concede this point in general. However, contraceptives that clearly do not cause abortions, such as condoms, cannot be said to cause abortions and therefore they prevent them. Contraceptives help prevent conception. They protect against STDs. They are far superior to NFP. My opponent's primary source is probably biased. For all these reasons, the resolution is affirmed. Sources:1. http://www.contracept.org...2. http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org...

Title: Birth Control Content: To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.