[shurleex3]

My team and I are going to debate against another this upcoming Thursday and it's on abortion. We researched this over the summer, but our research doesn't quite really satisfy our recently compiled resolution, sooo it's time to gather more information again. =D

First of all, my team is debating against abortions and our resolution is: Resolve that Roe vs Wade be upheld. We have to talk about why Roe vs Wade needs to be abolished and abortions become illegal, which I personally think sucks for my side (negative.)

Here is some background on Roe vs. Wade, all from Wikipedia:

"Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’ The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health. These rulings affected laws in 46 states."

I've done some research and I can't find any solid, good points to argue against the resolution. All the arguments I can find are weak and can be easily countered so personally, I'm Pro-Choice so I'm going to be biased, but I'll work on that. lol

So basically, I need help from you Soompiers on arguments that I can use to help my team on the debate =D?

(and, lol, don't discourage me D=)

[erure]

So you're against Roe v. Wade right?

I took biomedical ethics last year so I think I can help a little if my memory serves me okay. So you could argue for the sake of religion, especially people who are Catholics, because they believe that life begins from conception, not after birth. The debate about abortion pretty much boils down to definition of life -- exactly when does it start? When can we draw the line between not alive (yet) and alive? Because this line is practically impossible to draw, some people argue that we should just get rid of having to draw the line in the first place (abortion) altogether (another point that you can make). Also, you could say that even if the line is drawn at viability, people should consider the potential for life if the fetus is given a chance. Lastly you could just go through all the humane aspects of why abortion is so horrible and you could say it is a form of murder (the definition of murder for you should also be clarified). Hope this helps

[papabear]

My team and I are going to debate against another this upcoming Thursday and it's on abortion. We researched this over the summer, but our research doesn't quite really satisfy our recently compiled resolution, sooo it's time to gather more information again. =D

First of all, my team is debating against abortions and our resolution is: Resolve that Roe vs Wade be upheld. We have to talk about why Roe vs Wade needs to be abolished and abortions become illegal, which I personally think sucks for my side (negative.)

Here is some background on Roe vs. Wade, all from Wikipedia:

"Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’ The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health. These rulings affected laws in 46 states."

I've done some research and I can't find any solid, good points to argue against the resolution. All the arguments I can find are weak and can be easily countered so personally, I'm Pro-Choice so I'm going to be biased, but I'll work on that. lol

So basically, I need help from you Soompiers on arguments that I can use to help my team on the debate =D?

(and, lol, don't discourage me D=)

For the pro-life side, see if you can get a copy of the book by Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. Otherwise, consult the articles by George that are available online.

[shurleex3]

So you're against Roe v. Wade right?

I took biomedical ethics last year so I think I can help a little if my memory serves me okay. So you could argue for the sake of religion, especially people who are Catholics, because they believe that life begins from conception, not after birth. The debate about abortion pretty much boils down to definition of life -- exactly when does it start? When can we draw the line between not alive (yet) and alive? Because this line is practically impossible to draw, some people argue that we should just get rid of having to draw the line in the first place (abortion) altogether (another point that you can make). Also, you could say that even if the line is drawn at viability, people should consider the potential for life if the fetus is given a chance. Lastly you could just go through all the humane aspects of why abortion is so horrible and you could say it is a form of murder (the definition of murder for you should also be clarified). Hope this helps smile.gif

ooh. Very nice. [= I'll look more into it and get my thoughts together, based on some of these ideas. Thanks for helping. <3

For the pro-life side, see if you can get a copy of the book by Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. Otherwise, consult the articles by George that are available online.

Lol, I don't have much time. Procrastination</3 and public speaking </3 are some of my weaknesses. Grrrr. I couldn't really find any. o.o Thanks for the reply though. [=

Any others would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to contribute ~

[papabear]

ooh. Very nice. [= I'll look more into it and get my thoughts together, based on some of these ideas. Thanks for helping. <3



Lol, I don't have much time. Procrastination</3 and public speaking </3 are some of my weaknesses. Grrrr. I couldn't really find any. o.o Thanks for the reply though. [=

Any others would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to contribute ~

Here's one:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications...rns-and-embryos

Another:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comm...rge073001.shtml

You can also find some of his writings at the President's Council for Bioethics--here's one
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningre...dix.html#george

and The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity: http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/human_dig.../chapter16.html

[papabear]

I hope you got all the links, I edited that post a couple of times.

[DaAzNkIgGa627]

46 chromosones make a human being. Build off that argument.
Define Life, define murder etc. etc. Take control of that.

[shurleex3]

Here's one:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications...rns-and-embryos

Another:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comm...rge073001.shtml

You can also find some of his writings at the President's Council for Bioethics--here's one
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningre...dix.html#george

and The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity: http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/human_dig.../chapter16.html

I hope you got all the links, I edited that post a couple of times.

Yeap. Thanks, I got 4 links and thanks for going through all the trouble of looking for them. [= I'll scan through them later and take some notes.

46 chromosones make a human being. Build off that argument.
Define Life, define murder etc. etc. Take control of that.

Oh lalas~ I never though of the 46 chromosomes thing. I can definitely build off that. Thanks for the reply [=