Hey guys,

Rajat is making merry in Canada enjoying maple syrup and Terrence and Philip ... so we continue the debate on this post. We have the final constructive speech from the opposition below.


How will this debate end now?

If you have some ideas, do mail me at pranaybhatia02@gmail.com. For now, here's the plan - After this, each team gets the opportunity to make a final closing speech. No new points are allowed in the reply speeches.

We then invite all of you to judge this debate and vote for one of the sides. Put in a comment with the side you think won and do explain your decision as well. Vote on the arguments presented by the teams, not your personal opinions! The winning team members get these delicious foreign chocolates from me. So your vote is very very important!


Funda of the closing speech :

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication. A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments.


Funda of judging a debate :

The team which presented a better argument for its side of the debate did the better debating. Better arguments can be presented with better style or more logically appealing, but the substance of the arguments should outweigh purely superficial style. A team which looked good did not necessarily win.
Please note, that the Judge does not have to agree with the side which did the better debating, the judge merely has to recognize that their arguments were superior. If someone decides to propose the case "Abortion is immoral," the judge may dislike that debater. The judge may know of twenty reasons why abortion is not immoral. But the judge must decide if the Government's arguments for the case statement outweigh the Opposition's arguments that abortion is not immoral.
The judge should adopt a convention known as tabula rasa, the blank slate. A blank slate perspective means that the judge has no preconceived notions about the round and brings no knowledge or arguments to the round. The Government does not lose because the judge can beat their case. The Opposition does not lose because they did not beat the case as well as the judge could have or in the same way the judge would.
The only time the judge should use any outside knowledge would be when one side asserts bald-faced lies or when one side makes arguments which are so illogical that no ordinary person would believe them. Otherwise, the debaters must tell the judge why something does not make sense or why one argument outweighs another argument. The judge makes their decision about who won and who lost based on whether the arguments made in favor of the case statement outweighed the arguments against the case statement.



And here's the opp3 speech by Ishan Shrivastava -

Ladies and gentlemen, my speech primarily comprises of how the proposition is playing with morality and science to justify a completely illogical move of banning non-vegetarianism.

The prop, according to its own convenience has justified the reason for discriminating against plants as 'emotional pain'. Hasn't the same Creator who has given us the 'responsibility' of 'guarding the weak', given life to them? Plants, being the weakest of them all should be given A+ security then. But the opp does not believe in such baseless theories and considers our survival to be the top most priority, hence we defined meat as a 'luxury' food item. Thus, our point on the prop's hypocritical morality still stands. They are hopping about Science and Morality to suit themselves alone. My competent friend here says that Bose's claims were philosophical, then what are yours?

'...and then the opposition expects the government to waste more land resources for the animals! '- Proposition
and we thought that animals were equal to us... Shouldn't they have an equal right to these lands? Here I would bring into light the 'toddlers and aged' example again. These are members of our species, who will contribute or have contributed to the society in one way or another. Therefore, it is govt's duty to ensure their protection.

How can the govt. impose its interpretation of the Creator's will (if we are to believe in any) and intervene in an individual's acceptance of the fact that He/She did not make certain species as anatomically superior as others and wanted us to enjoy some 'flesh'? But the government sees blood and considers animals as our brothers. The govt's sole purpose is to ensure welfare of their own kind. Therefore, the only debatable point of the proposition I see is the damage caused to the environment.

If we are to agree to the facts presented to us by the proposition-Let us for the time being! Some more facts, which do not need any source citation include the use of vehicles, manufacturing of each and every product, celebration of festivals and many more, which are sources of pollution and most of them come under the category of 'luxury'. Will the govt. go ahead and ban them too? No! It wont. It will rely on technology to come up with solutions as it has continued to do so throughout the ages. An example here could be 'The Green Revolution', which solved the problem of food scarcity across the globe. Where it failed, the major causes included corruption and the unwillingness of governments.

The govt. cannot go ahead and just ban something when there are measures to ensure a balance. Rules and regulations to ensure that there is a healthy balance is the need of the hour. Just because we are expecting a gloomy future for this planet due to way more hazardous causes than non-vegism, the prop sees the ban as a rebound option for a positive step. But what the prop fails to realize is that abolishment of an industry, which supports millions and has religious sentiments as pointed out earlier is an insane and illogical step. Too many cars. Ban them! Too much of furniture. Ban it! Too much of electricity. Ban it! I will not stretch my point and once again emphasize on the fact that the government has the power and resources to ensure balance. In this case, the law-framers can ensure a cap on the production of packaged meat, mark-off lands, provide education to the livestock farmers, ensure quality standards at industries with penalties for the wrong-doers. Such steps can be carried out in every sphere (e.g. promotion of public transport) to get things into a smooth scenario. Resources are bound to deplete, now or some time in the future. What the govt. should ensure is that it does not pass baseless laws, practices healthy economic and social methods, and supports the scientific researches.

Also, according to the 10% logic which the proposition put forward, the govt. should go ahead and ban all the veggie food products also, which give lesser energy/vitamins/minerals/

proteins/etc. than the ones, which give the maximum. Also mentioned earlier, the need of the hour is balance and not outright ban as most illogically suggested by prop.

Even though, our stand is based considering food as a 'luxury' item, we would like to bring into notice that in certain parts of the country/world, it is not possible to ensure an adequate protein intake without meat.

I would like to conclude my speech by re-emphasizing on the hypocritical morality of the proposition, as rightly done by my fellow opposition members. Also, the scientific facts are not at all conclusive for an outright ban on such a massive industry. The previous speaker/writer started his speech by being amused at the 'appalling' justification of the 'meat-eaters' statement. The highly narrow - minded pre-conceived notions of the proposition are evident through the title given to us. We could all be vegetarians for all you know.

-----------------------------------

Prop and opp each get one last speech to recap their case. Opp reply is furter down.

Here's the reply speech for the proposition by Pranay -

It’s been a long debate. Take a breath, relax, and let logic guide your thinking.

Allow me to show you why we on side prop have made several substantive arguments that more than discharge our burden, while the opposition has been too scared to take a stand and have responded to all our arguments with irrelevant, illogical or inhuman arguments.

Firstly, let me remind you of the assumptions of this debate. The opposition conceded that meat was a luxury, that it is not exclusively required to survive or for any other special dietary requirements. In other words, for the purposes of this debate, the only reason you might eat meat is because you enjoy the taste.

We made a very simple argument. We proposed criteria regarding what qualities a living thing must possess to merit moral consideration. Animals, as sentient beings, that feel pain, and have cognitive abilities that often exceed those of young children, deserve some consideration. To inhibit all their natural instincts, make every moment of their life excruciatingly painful, and then mercilessly kill them at the end is inhuman and frankly, pathetic. The opposition response? They rejected our criteria, but never once gave you their own criteria. That’s because they had no logical criteria. Their only statement on this matter was that we as humans owe nothing to animals. The opposition affords absolutely no moral consideration to animals! They say, and I quote, ‘we do not have a duty towards them.‘ If you feel like killing your cat, Opp says go ahead. Opp does not believe that breeding conditions in factory farms should be regulated. If you want to torture animals and charge others a fee to watch the ‘fun’, Opp says sure, why not. If you want to keep zoo animals in pathetic conditions, Opp says okay, your wish, the govt. shouldn’t stop you! In a world where the courts do not even allow the BMC to cull stray dogs; this is clearly not the will of the people in society.

We further told you how the practice of non-vegetarianism severely affects ecosystems and causes the large scale loss of animals’ lives. We told you why this is fundamentally more unsustainable than vegetarianism, and how it will come back to bite us as humans, if we do not stop destroying the environment for reasons as trivial as ‘I like the taste’. We also told you why these steps are depriving the poor of food because they are so wasteful. We do not pretend that the step we propose will solve all problems related to the environment or related to the poor, but it will be a huge step in the right direction. We have seen no rebuttal on that point. The funny part is that Opp doesn’t want species extinct, but it doesn’t mind their numbers getting severely reduced and that ecosystem destroyed. What benevolent moral principles guide this stand of side Opp?

Opp claimed that vegetarianism also causes pain to plants. We showed you why that is simply scientifically wrong. Moreover, plants are not tortured and inhibited from living their natural lives. Let’s not kid ourselves; there are orders of magnitudes difference between the two cases. Even if we assume for a second that plants do feel some significant pain, we should still make the choice to inflict lesser pain, a choice that obviously leads to vegetarianism.

The opposition has hidden behind lofty principles of ‘freedom of choice’. Opp talked about the ‘right to choice’ and how the government must respect individual morality and ‘religious freedoms’. Allow me to repeat myself - If that were so, Sati would still be prevalent, and I would be permitted to torture goats for fun. To this Opp says – ‘If you speak about Sati, it was never moral, it continued because it was enforced on women.’ Yes, and non-vegetarianism is enforced on countless animals who are made to suffer, just like those women were. But of course, Opp sees nothing wrong in that. Opp has ‘no duty’ towards animals. Opp also talks about cigarettes, drinking and the right to choice. In neither of these cases do you force the torture of animals in the manner you do while eating meat. Where cigarettes harm others through second hand smoke, the govt. does step in and make laws regardless of your ‘right to choice’.

Opp has no morality, no ethics and no sense of righteousness. They also have no case. The Government, considering the clear logic of the issue of unnecessary animal suffering, as well as the serious repercussions of non-vegetarianism on feeding the poor, on the sustainability of ecosystems and hence on our own environmental surroundings, can either take the right step or impotently turn its eyes away.

Remember, we are a rational people. Arguments like ‘It’s always happened that way’ or ‘I like that so I won’t stop’ or ‘I will accept arbitrary divisions that have no logic’ are not valid. That’s all Opp has offered, while we have given you several substantives. We rest our case.

-----------------------------------

Here's the reply speech for the opposition by Ravi Bhoraskar -

Ladies And Gentlemen,

As we come to the conclusion of the debate, the result must be fairly clear, and the opposition has clearly won the debate. During the course of my speech I shall list down the major issues around which the debate has revolved, and I shall show how the opposition's arguments have been far superior on each of the points, and hence how the opposition has won the debate.

The debate has revolved around the following points: One, the environment and how non vegetarianism harms it. Two, the economic viability of eating meat and the sustainability of non vegetarianism. Third, the effect of meat on health. Fourth, the right to choice and whether the government has sufficient justification to ban meat. And finally, morality and how non vegetarianism is cruel and unjust. I shall discuss each of these points and show how the opposition's arguments are stronger on each of them.

Let us begin with the environment issue. The proposition argued that consumption of non vegetarian food detoriates the environment. The opposition show that this fact alone does not justify a ban. Environmental degradation is caused by use of vehicles, manufacturing of each and every product, celebration of festivals and a lot more. However it would be preosterous to think of banning these. The fact is that excess of anything becomes an evil, and the aims of the government should be directed towards enforcement of moderation, and development of technology to find solutions. Enforcing indiscriminate bans can never be a solution, and when the government begins to interfere into each and every aspect of the affairs of its citizens, the society detoriates into anarchy, which should never be allowed.

The point on which there has been maximum debate and discussio n has beeen that of morality. The proposition has constantly shifted stance and has tried to conveniently frame a model of morality which proves their point. Under this morality, it is not okay to kill animals for food because they feel painand because it is wrong to take the life of one of God's creations, but plants(though they too are God's creation) are excluded because after all it is a matter of survival. Under this morality, humans are given weighty titles like “guardians of the weak” but we conveniently forget that plants too are weak and need protection. In this morality, it is okay that millions of humans lose their jobs and source of livelihood, so that animals can be saved from pain. Obviously it is a farce and hypocritical morality which they are talking about.

The opposition believes that people do not have a filet mignon because they want to prove their dominance over other species, nor because they want to show they are powerful. They have it merely because it is scrumptuous and they love to eat it. The opposition further believes that people should be allowed to eat what they want to. Morality is a matter of personal faith, and the government cannot and should not impose a collective morality on its citizens(unless there is a loss to the society as a whole, which in this case there clearly isn't).

The next area of the debate has been the economic viability of meat. The proposition has raised questions over the sustainability of non vegetarianism and has harped on about the harm injustice being done to the world's poor. The opposition believes that the government is trying to push forward a communist ideology. Following the same logic, the government would ban all luxury items in the world including strawberries, mangoes, vanilla and saffron. This would after all bring justice to the poor, which is what the proposition is looking for. They would also have us all eat plain steamed rice, for breakfast, lunch and dinner as this would reduce the hunger in the world. Totally ridiculous, ladies and gentlemen. The opposition has shown throughout the debate via arguments, rhetoric an analogies the fatal flaw in this approach of the proposition which is that the government has no right to control my mind and to tell me what to do.

The proposition also gave health as a reason to ban non vegetarian food. While it may be true that eating meat increases cholestrol level, there are equally dangerous problems with vegetarian food, if not worse. Fertilizers, pesticides and contaminated water have been scientifically proved to be carcinogenic. Also it is a matter of choice for the citizens whether they want to risk their health or not. The most the government should do is to print mandatory health warnings on the meat packets. A very effective example given was that of cigarettes, which shows that the individuals righ tot choose supercedes any health concerns which the government may have for its citizens. The proposition gave many fact and figures and arguments to prove their point, but no graph can beat the sheer common sense which says that the right to choose must prevail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, on each and every point discussed in the debate, the opposition has come on top and has exposed the baselessness and frivolity of the weak case put forward by the proposition. On these grounds, the debate has clearly been won by the opposition.

-----------------

And that's it. Now we await your verdict! See the judging fundae at the start of this post, think logically and tell us which side you think wins the debate and why.

Gotta say, this has been fun.

This House Will Ban Abortion

Background

The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a child whilst it is in its mother’s womb. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the foetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? At conception? At birth? Or, maybe somewhere between. The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the mother’s right to choose as the primary concern.

This house Will Ban Abortion


Prop 4 by Priyanka

Ladies and Gentlemen, I will now conclude for side opposition and show you how our side has effectively won this debate.

One of the main points that the proposition raised is that as the foetus has the potential of becoming a full fledged human being, it's rights should be given a higher precedent than that of the mother. The prop deputy speaker clearly said that though the foetus was not a "person", as it had the potential of becoming a person, we cannot "murder it". Strong words, ladies and gentlemen, but highly illogical ones. As out opposition 3 pointed out if the propostion merely talks about potentialities, then condoms should be banned and every stray sperm and egg should be regarded with reverence as a "potential human being". Their logic falls flat on tis face and we have clearly proved to you why the mother's right to her own body definitely precedes.

Our worthy proposition has failed to come up with any effective logical answer for a case of rape. If a woman is raped, are they honestly telling me that she should be forced to go through a long and arduous pregnancy merely to deliver a child that will always suffer from a social stigma through out its life? If abortion was legal, these women would be taken care of and be allowed to take their rightful place in society.

Then the propostion goes on to talk about "parental obligation". They say it is the duty of the parents to society to take care of their children after they are born so why not before birth. Side opposition has pointed out the difference between these two statements. Once the child is born, it is no longer in the mother's body. There is no longer a conflict of interests. The mother's right to her body and the foetus's life. At this point the parents are bound to look after the child and if their economic situation is not good, they do have the option for giving it for adoption.

Then the propostion came up with some fantastic analogy for our side. They said that we would try and compare the process of abortion with a kidney transplant. They say, that just as the mother is not legally bound to donate a kidney to her child in the same way she cannot be legally bound to deliver her child to the world. They then go on to rebut their own argument by saying this analogy is trash as "Firstly, kidney is an extra-ordinary transplant and kidney failures rarely happen to some people because of some disorder."
I ask you my friends. Simply because kidney failures are rare, can we not see the direct analogy between the two situations?

Suddenly in the middle of the debate, our worthy proposition suddenly shoots down some by ways and talks about side opposition sympathizing with career oriented women and women who want to have sexual intercourse for pleasure. They laugh at us for wanting to protect these citizens interests. But then they act very "holier than thou" and go on to say themselves that they do not condemn premarital sex etc. etc. In short, they are merely playing with words and are themselves confused as to what is the right thing. We as side opposition are very clear. We want to protect these citizens interests and we want to see that there are no unhappy uncared for children by allowing them to have an abortion if they so desire.

We come back to another major point which side proposition has conveniently neglected. What if the doctor predicts that the child will be mentally defective or have some other disorder. Such tests can be carried out via DNA testing. Why should the parents be bound to bring this child in the world. Lets not kid ourselves ladies and gentlemen. This child will be unhappy and require special attention. What if the parents cant afford to give it what it needs? Should they be forced to deliver the child into this world? We as side oppostion are very clear. Is it insensitive or illoigcal to say that we will allow the parents the right to abortion and therefore care for everybody.

The side proposition also comes up and says many things about the risk faced by the women during this surgery. Well we don't ask every woman to abort her baby. If the woman wants to then we give her the option. Also, this surgery is no more dangerous than numerous other operations carried out. Opposition 3 has clearly proved this.

Lastly I want to tell you what the proposition has said about what kind of effect making abortion legal will cause. They say it will promote female infanticide etc etc. First of all, this is a weak point on their part by deviating away from the crux of the case. But we will show you how we still win this point. First of all, female infanticide still occurs whether we like it or not. if the parents go so far as to break the law and determine the sex of the child, what stops them from killing it if it is a girl in any case? We show you that by making abortion legal, not only is the mother taken care of as she will undergo a proper surgical procedure but also, such cases will come out in the open and the government will be able to deal with these families better.

I would also like to say, that by making abortion legal, premarital sex etc, etc will not be "boosted". As the opp 1 speaker said, in poor countries, where there is no access to media in any case, premarital sex occurs. Abortion has nothing to do with it. Only by dealing out effective sex education will such issues be effectively dealt with.

Thus, i have shown you, how on every count side opposition's logic holds and the propositions logic falls flat on its face.
I therefore request the adjudicators to award the debate to us.
Thank you


Prop 3 by Hardik Mehta

Ladies and gentlemen, let me summarize the points around which the debate has revolved so far-

1)Equal rights for all, considering personhood of the embryo

2)Moral opinion of the government

3)Abortion as a decision of parents(career or resources)

4)Risk to mothers due to abortion

5)Rape cases

Now before I address them, let me clear a point. The house here is 6 rational people. But I would still clear the 'government's' stance by sayibg that it does not consider sexual intercourse between two individuals(teens or unmarried) immoral. They can surely do so for the sake of pleasure. But what it does consider immoral is that people should not abuse "the power of human creation". By this I mean that two individuals can prevent the formation of a zygote, but if the fertilisation occurs, they have not right to an abortion. I shall clarify this in the course of my speech.

1)The prop deputy speaker very convincingly reasserted that a foetus is a person, and is as good as an infant. The deputy opposition leader tried to reason that since a government can't issue a passport/citizenship to a foetus, it is not an individual. The government can't, for obvious reasons, issue a passport to a child. We cannot follow the general line of notion that a born child is a person whereas an unborn child is not. The general line of notion is based on sensory perceptions, what we can feel, see, etc. But that doesn't take away the personhood of a foetus. Just laws should be made that go beyond the limitations of human psychology.

Also, we clearly stated that it considers "beings" capable of growing into adults as a person, which includes a foetus, but not sperms or eggs. Banning masturbation is a ridiculous idea. The opp proposes to ban it, but I am not sure how much they like the idea....

Therefore a foetus at any stage of development is as much a person as an adult human being.

2)The goverment doesn't consider sex between two people immoral. But once fertilisation occurs, terminating it amounts to murder as shown by my teammates. Surely no one can argue that murder is not immoral. Then why this whole confusion of government imposing morality on people.

Also I would give you an example. A married couple manages to get a sex determination test done somewhere. They then give reasons of career and resources to terminate pregnancy. Agreed, that being able to determine sex implies government machinery is flawed, but this shouldn't be allowed to amount to murder. The point in consideration here is female foeticide.

3)I would restate the parental obligation point raised by deputy prop leader. The zygote is not their property but moral responsibility. The opp sympathyses with career oriented women who do not wish to have children. They always have the option of oral prevention tablets known to be 100% effective. And even women who do not have a career and nevertheless want to have sex for pleasure(the opp sympathises with them too for some reason) can use them. The government should promote these measures to the fullest. But in the event of conception, someone's ignorance should not amount to murder. In case of financial problems, again the same logic holds. The government should promote family planning rather than allowing abortion.

4)We strongly believe that abortion poses a risk to the mother bearing the foetus. It has dangers as stated before.The opp spoke of risks arising from child birth, but never elaborated on what kind of risks. It was ridiculous on the opp's part to compare abortion to cosmetic surgery or bypass. Let me clarify that almost all surgery's/medical procedures(except abortion) exist for saving a person's life or to eliminate a potential danger. Any surgery has risk, but the motive is to save life.That's the reason the person makes a willing choice. Abortion does not save life.(Our initial prolife arguments justify abortion in case the mother has fatal danger, so its a different case). Abortion was introduced to terminate pregnancies posing danger to mother in the 1960's. But people started using it for other reasons like female foeticide, etc. The government should terminate a practice undertaken by people which poses a risk to themselves and amounts to murder of those they don't consider as persons.

5)The opposition also made some ridiculous statement about mentally retarded kids not contributing to economy. It went - "
Yes, the government's duty is to look after all it's citizens with the help of the limited resources it has, not merely the socially weak sections." which translates to - "Yes, it is the governments duty to only look after those who contribute to economy and do away with the weak sections." I don't think it needs more explanation. They have abused the fundamental right to life and equality here. I also rebutt the opp's ridiculous population control method with this.

I have shown how the case falls in our favour with respect to four of the initial points. On these points I would like to rest my case.




Opp 2-by Ravi Bhoraskar

Ladies and gentlemen, the honourable propostion is being dishonourable by changing and twisting the definition to suit it's whims. Abortion to save the life of the mother is suddenly allowed now in the middle of the debate! But fear not ladies and gentlemen. In spite of the unethical practises being followed by the proposition in this debate “on a pure ethical stand”, we the opposition will still show you how each and every point raised by the proposition is either untrue, or is not a point at all. So let me jump straight to my rebuttals. I shall introduce a few constructive alnong the way, which are not large in number lest the proposition cry insufficient warning.

First, let us talk about the health risks associated with abortion. The proposition say that “in fact it is true that more mothers are harmed because of abortion than delivery”. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is entirely untrue and I can quote several sources to prove it. But being a factual clash, this point stands null and void. But even if we concede that abortion is a risky procedure, I would like to point out that any medical procedure has risk of complication including death (including childbirth, by the way). But do you BAN heart bypass surgery, or cosmetic facial surgery(which happens to be non essential) because there is a risk involved? Obviously not. The doctor informs the patientof the risks, and then the patient considers the pros and cons and then if s/he wishes to undergo surgery, s/he does. The same should be the procedure for abortion. A ban serves no purpose at all.
And the health risks associated with abortion is related to one of my constructives. Even if abortion is banned, there will continue to be several crook doctors who will provide illegal abortion. And the rate of mortality in these clinics will be much higher than when abortion is legal, since there is no accountability, and several of the “doctors” will in fact be quacks. Several countries, including England in the 1960s and India in 1970s have toyed with the idea of banning abortion, and had to repeal the laws for precisely this reason. People will not ruin ruin their whole lives with an unwanted child just because of the government's religious belief. If they wish to have an abortion, they would do so even if it is illegal, and even if the health risks are significantly high.

Second, let us come to the morality point. The proposition argue that banning abortion will make penalties for risky sex behaviour higher, and hence prevent such behaviour. First of all, unprotected pre marital sex among consenting adults is not a crime under any law and I fail to see why the proposition wishes to prevent this. The government's, or anyone else's duty is limited to warning others about the dangers of unprotected sex and stop at that. If they feel that this is 'corrupting their morals', it is their own personal opinion and they have no right to impose their morality on the general public. Secondly, even if we concede that the proposition is a super conservative Saudi Arabian government, why this round about method for preventing pre marital sex, we don't understand. They could pass a law enforcing use of condoms during premarital sex, or simply ban premarital sex if that is what they want. The link between abortion and enforcement of morality is very far-fetched, and several easier and less traumatic methods exist.

Now let us talk about the personhood of the prenata. The question is at what state would you call the embryo a person? Following the logic given by the proposition, the zygote itself is a person and hence the contraceptive measures like Copper T, or the morning after pill should be banned too, since they prevent the implantation of the zygote and not the conception. But if we extrapolate their logic even further, even the egg and sperm are “persons” because they possess the “potential” to become an adult. Hence the proposition should ban all forms of contraception including condoms, and even ban masturbation for that matter. Ladies and Gentlemen, nobody is going to ban condoms. However my point is that we need to draw a line somewhere. The generally accepted line is that an individual is a person once s/he is born. That is the time when the government issues a passport and recongnises the individual as a citizen of the country. The proposition is questioning this model itself for the sake of this debate. Clearly their arguments are flawed, and hence their long, emoional paragraph equating abortion to murder and appealing to emotion rather than reason, stands nullified.

Under the heading “Women’s need for abortion”, the honourable deputy prime minister claims that social reforms will eliminate the need of abortion altogether. I would like to point out that several times, the desicion to abort is the woman's personal choice and is not forced by the family. This is the 21st Century, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today women are no longer the subdued and passive sex. No longer is the sole duty of women to give birth to an offspring and raise the child. If the proposition opened their eyes to the reality, they would see several career oriented and working women. Many of them place their work and livelihood on a higher priority than even their family. They would not wish to jeapordize their career by becoming pregnant and raising an unwanted child at the unsuitable time. In fact quite a few times the desicion to abort is the mother's, when in fact the family want her to have a child. And this turn's the proposition's point on its head. It is in fact the most empowered women who are taking the desicion to abort their child, contrary to what team proposition would have us believe.

Moving on to the point of parental obligation. The proposition make the case saying that if it is the obligation of the parents to take care of the baby once it is born, why not before it is born. However there is a subtle diffrence in the two cases. Once a baby is born, the parents always have the option of giving it over for adoption, or giving it to an orphanage. The technology for such an option before birth is not yet developed, and hence the option of adoption must remain open. I do not know why the proposition is comparing abortion to kidney donation. However I disagree when the opposition says that “(the baby) is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents”. Two individuals may indulge in sexual intercourse without the slightest intention of creating a baby. I feel that nobody should be penalised for having sex for pleasure, which is what the proposition wishes to do. The couple may choose to use contraception. However the success rate of condoms is known to be less than 95%. Surely, the proposition does not wish to penalise 5% of the population just for having sex. Unless of course, they consider sex itself to be “immoral”, in which case they need to grow up.
And of course the proposition must also answer who will look after the child if the parents are unwilling or unable to. They cannot shirk their responsibilities by simply saying that they will siphon the money from the abortion hospitals. Consider the case when the baby has a severe mental retardation or physical deformity. Isn't it merciful to not let it be born than let it live a life of ridicule and misery? Also is it fair to spend taxpayer's money on raising such a child(who will have no contribution whatsoever to the economy), when the parents are unwilling to rear it themselves? Yes it sounds harsh, but the government's duty is to look after all it's citizens with the help of the limited resources it has, not merely the socially weak sections.

And lastly, the cases of rape. The proposition say “(In rape cases)...It is common knowledge that woman wouldn’t want to abort the child if it weren’t from the fear of the society.”
If this is common knowledge, then it is also common knowledge that this is the 15th century and since it is common knowledge that a debate can not be time set, we automatically win the debate. :)
On a more serious note, the proposition claim that forcing the woman to carry the child is the “nonviolent solution which allows the mother to heal mentally”. Consider the scenario when a woman is raped. She has been a victim of a violent crime. She needs to recurparate from it's aftermath. Team proposition wish to force her to undergo physical and mental turmoil of carrying a child for nine months, while she is still dealing with the agony of the aftermath of the rape. Then she is forced to undergo childbirth, which is a massively painful experience in itself. And to top that, she has to raise the child as a single mother: a child which reminds her throughout her life of the humiliation she has been through. Team proposition wishes to give the harshest possible punishement to the rape victim. Apparently they believe that it is the woman's fault that she has been the victim of such a serious crime. Sadism and male chauvinism to the extreme.

On these points we rest our case. We proudly oppose.


Prop 2 Shashwat Gandhi





Dear worthy and compassionate fellow human beings, now I begin my constructive. I will rebut some points of the opposition in the course of my constructive and a few other points towards the end. Before that, I would like to offer the following explanation for the terms I will be using for this debate.

Human being: an individual member of the species Homo sapiens.

Prenate (as a noun of prenatal for my convenience) : an umbrella term for the zygote, embryo, and fetus in the mother‘s uterus/womb.

Abortion: the deliberate termination of the life of the unborn child. Note three things about this definition; it does not include miscarriage (and in that sense it departs from the medical definition of abortion) it does not include prenatal death as an unintended result of a medical procedure to save the life of the mother, and it does not include the removal of the body of a prenate who has died in utero.

Person: a being which has what are commonly referred to as "human rights". Every person may not be a human, example an alien having some human rights. Whether every human being is a person is, of course, one of the main controversies in this abortion debate.

I am going to present a case against abortion without stating the beliefs of any religion on a pure ethical stand. I’ll be making my constructive on the points of personhood of the prenate, parental obligations, and the so called ’need for abortion’ which is actually a direct evidence for the need of getting better justice for the women.

Prenatal Personhood :

“ Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value.”

--Ronald Reagan


I believe the opposition doesn’t contradict my assumption if I say that every person has the right to live and if it is violated, it is the duty of the government to protect it. Now the question is only who can be considered as a person. It is almost intuitive and usual to consider the qualities that separate us from the rest of animals. Personal acts like ‘the ability to reason and make moral choices.’ So this accounts for almost all of the human beings except infants and the prenate.

Infants cant reason or make moral choices. So are they non-persons? Now we may say that they turn into persons. But then why don’t trees and bugs turn into persons? Because there is something in the infant different from plants and bugs that makes him a person later. The developing infants naturally produces the mental structures required to be a person. This is inherent in him and not achieved by any outside force. In fact this is in him ever since he was conceived. Ever since he was conceived by the union of the gametes, as a human being, he has the potential to become a person.

Public opinion as well as the opposition I am sure, believes in the human-rights of the infants. We keep them ‘in trust’ for them till they turn into a person capable of reasoning and making moral choices. What I am pointing out is the fact that there is already a provision in place safeguarding the personhood of those who are yet to perform personal acts. So the proposition is not proposing something new when it says that the personhood of the unborn child should be protected.

I know what the counterintuitive is. It is that many people may feel that prenate is so different and subhuman in the early stages that it cant be a person. But isn’t it strange that everyone of us was a prenate at one point of time? And once we are adults and engage in such a debate, we forget this fact, we set ourselves as the norm and compare the prenate to our model of normal person that is us--- adults.

Parental Obligation

Defenders of abortion may argue that even if the prenate is a person that doesn’t mean the mother is obliged to let it live because it is in her body.

It is the legal duty of the parent to provide the infant the basic rights of food, shelter, clothing. No stranger has this duty. The parents are entrusted with this duty. They look after the basic necessity of their child after their birth. But now if the unborn child is a person, doesn’t it become their duty to take care of the need of their child before birth?

The opposition may argue that the parent cannot be legally bound to donate some organ like kidney even to save the child, similarly the mother cannot be bound since it means giving her body. But there are significant differences between kidney donation and pregnancy. Firstly, kidney is an extra-ordinary transplant and kidney failures rarely happen to some people because of some disorder. The parents never directly create a need for the kidney transplant which is different from pregnancy.

In the usual case, where pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents. The need to live in the mother's uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure. It is a basic human need -- every single person who has ever been born required it. Just as the newborn has a specific claim against his parents due to the fact that they created him in all his helplessness, so too should he have claim against them before he was born, for the same reason.

When pregnancy occurs as the result of sexual assault, the opposition makes a case that that the woman is not obligated to carry the child to term. I still say that the ethical thing to do is to seek a nonviolent solution which allows the mother to heal mentally and the child to live. It is common knowledge that woman wouldn’t want to abort the child if it weren’t from the fear of the society. No woman should feel that she must abort in order to spare herself the social stigma of bearing "the rapist's child", or that abortion is the only way to get on with her life after the attack. If a rape survivor feels that she must have an abortion, the people who are supposed to help her have failed her. The problem here is not the innocent unborn child with absolutely no fault of his, it is about the social stigma associated with the woman being raped which has to be dealt by education and upliftment of the status of women.

Women’s need for abortion

You must’ve seen how the opposition has portrayed themselves as friends of the parent(s) and us as insensitive to their need. Though it may win them sympathies, it is intellectually dishonest. It is like blaming the proposition for being soft on crime because they oppose death penalty.

The supporters of abortion have several legitimate concerns due to unplanned pregnancies. They are enraged that an unplanned pregnancy can mean social, financial, and professional ruin for a woman. They're outraged that many women are still uneducated about the way their bodies work, and many others lack access to safe, affordable contraception. They're absolutely right.

But shouldn't the solution to these inequities be a change in the social structures that cause them? Legal discrimination and sanctioned violence against the very young cannot change the unfairness of our society toward mothers -- it can only keep women from being mothers, for a while at least. The underlying problems are not solved, and we set a horrible precedent that allows us to define away the humanity of those who get in our way.

Rebuttals:

The opposition claims that abortion (which I believe, of unplanned pregnancies) is an ideal way for population control. What do they want next? To kill the very old, the handicaps and the diseased because they are unwanted in the name of population control? The historical reasons for population control have been wars, famines and epidemics.

Still if opposition believes that unwanted unprotected sex leading to conception is happening with such a frequency, the solution isn’t abortion, it is in awareness of contraception. Even if a violent mean like war had been effective in population control, we wouldn’t like to set a horrendous example for the forthcoming humanity by using some tool as violent as abortion which involves killing the innocent, very young in the name of population control.

The opposition says that immature parents(which I consider to mean as teenage parents) may cause deterioration of the life of the infant and hence abortion shouldn’t be banned. But it because of the is the fact that abortions exist, teenagers engage in the risky unprotected sex irresponsibly considering abortion as an easy resort. Banning abortions would teach responsibility to them as well as respect for human life which they are capable of producing.

In the extremely rare abortion cases where the mother will die if the child is not aborted, the proposition considers that as an extreme and will give the choice to the mother. The proposition doesn’t consider it as a deliberate abortion as it is mentioned in my explanation for the term abortion earlier in the speech, though the proposition accepts that this rare intricacy was missed before, it is very consistent with the pro-life arguments of the proposition for which the mother’s life is as important as the child.

But in fact it is true that more mothers are harmed because of abortion than delivery. More than 45% of all abortions are unsafe to the well being of the mother, one more reason to think twice about abortion.

“Will Government provide resources to raise the child?”

It is indeed shocking that the opposition wants the government to continue pouring money into offering abortions at the hospitals for unplanned pregnancies of irresponsible poor people, which amounts to the murder of a person in fact as I have proved; but not into constructive activities like development of poor children through free food and education schemes.

And the most appalling one- “Zygote is the property of the parents”

An extremely pathetic statement. The ‘zygote’ ladies and gentleman, is the unborn child. You can see how insensitive we can get when we use such blunt scientific terms. No person is the property of some other person. I am appalled at the extremely backward viewpoint of the opposition which wants to take us back to the dark inhuman times when the slave was cruelly forced to become the ‘property’ of the master.

Conclusion

I have conclusively shown that on a ethical basis without considering any religious viewpoint, why abortion is outrageously unethical. It is a disrespect for the power of human creation. And an insult to the life of an unborn potential person who may in future lead the human race to another stage of its evolution. So with all respect to life and power of creation, I am proud to propose.




Opp 1 by Ishan Srivastava


Ladies and gentlemen, I shall start with the rebuttals followed by a few constructive arguments.


Rebuttal #1:
' The embryo is its own being that should have it's own rights to protect it.' -Proposition

For starters, a zygote is not as developed as a new born baby. Therefore, it cannot enjoy the fundamental rights enjoyed by us as most illogically claimed by prop. Abortion has been compared to murder by my able friend. Let me tell him that if the govt. compels the mother to conceive and it results in the wreck of the family due to economic/health/social problems, the govt alone will be responsible for the murder of the entire family.

By the prop's logic, sale of condoms should also be banned as it prevents the 'formation of an embryo, which cannot be duplicated'.

Rebuttal #2:
The prop claims the human race to be the most supreme. What a bizarre point! The opposition fails to understand how the prop defines 'supremacy'. On one hand, they talk about compassion for a zygote and on the other exhibit their disrespect for the other species. Hypocrisy at its level best.

"ban something which destroys one of the most supreme races on this planet"
So, if we were not at the apex of the living hierarchy, it would have been perfectly alright to have the species destroyed?

Rebuttal #3:
The earlier speech mentions certain medical terms to decorate the insanity of the proposal. As far as complications are concerned, it is the mother's choice to face them for a cause in which she believes in. If the mother is forced to abort, then that is another issue itself and comes under a different section of the Constitution.

Also, a lot of medical complications can occur as a result of conceiving an unhealthy baby. I shall explain this point in more detail in the constructive arguments.

Rebuttal#4:
'The media these days throws up a lot of sexual stimuli due to which.....'

a. So, when there was no media, youth was very responsible and took all the protective measures?
b. In areas where media is unavailable (e.g. rural areas of India, Africa, South-East,etc.), there have been innumerable cases recorded of AIDS and other STDs, which would actually constitute a lesser percentage of people having unprotected sex over there.
c. 'Legalising it would only urge them to increase this habbit, thereby corrupting their morals.'
Somebody needs to grow up over here. How can the proposition consider the spiritual act of intercourse, which is responsible for our existence as immoral? The shaky morality, which the prop has been exhibiting since the start takes a massive blow over here.

The media, in our point of view is actually a great source to spread awareness, which it rightfully does.

Rebuttal #5:
'Hence, using the common sense that tells a businessman to shutshop if his losses are more than his profits....'
And we thought that the law-making body was an epitome of hope and courage. Is this the philosophy by which a governing body works?

Also, which benefits and losses are you talking about? The benefits to a family whose survival has been made difficult by the govt. as a result of stupid laws or the losses to a family, who lives a healthy life and contributes to the society?

Constructives:

1. The prop should realize that the zygote is the property of the mother or both the parents. Therefore, the govt. has no say in it. Will the govt. provide the resources needed to raise a child? This could involve economically unstable families as well as the stable ones.

2. The parent(s) may not be mature enough to raise a kid, which will definitely lead to the child's deterioration, triggering the deterioration of the family and society.

3. During development inside the mother's womb, signs of a unhealthy baby can be detected, which can lead to the death of the mother if not aborted.

4. What does the prop. has to say in the case of rapes? According to the very morally sound proposition, a girl/woman tormented enough by the act itself should be left to the dogs for the rest of her life. Justice in a form as never seen before!

5. Abortion, when done willingly and not as a result of sexism is a major factor of controlling the already exploding population,

I would like to conclude here by stressing on my major point - Rape cases. The proposition's definition which was not even properly mentioned is absurd. I appeal to the adjudicator to have this debate given to us right away, instead of having the prop losing miserably and causing wastage of time.



Prop 1 Ishan Sodhi

This house:6 rational people


Abortion: the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, etc) from the uterus. It is the loss

of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.


My first constructive is that , every man is born equal and must be granted equal fundamental rights. Never, in modern

times, has the state granted to one citizen the right to have another killed in order to solve his/her personal, social, or

economic problems. The embryo is its own being that should have it's own rights to protect it. The zygote is a unique

genetic being. If one was to abort an embryo than that embryo, that human life, would never be duplicated.



This brings me to my 2nd constructive that, any Living thing responds to stimuli , breathes and consumes energy to

survive, so does a foetus. In adddition to that it has the potential to develop into a fully functional human being , which is

the most supreme race of our planet. So should we not on scientific grounds , let apart on religous , ethical or social BAN

something which destroys one of the most supreme races on this planet?



My third constructive focuses around the risks from abortion. According to medical reports , abortion can pose grave

risks to the mother, as during the operation complications may occur, for example allergic reactions to specific

anaesthetics, a torn cervix or perforation in the wall of the uterus. This may leave the woman unable to have children in

later life.



And my last constructive is regarding the media.The media these days throws up a lot of sexual stimuli due to which

people(youth) have unprotected sex and find a way to relieve themselves of this burden by going for an abortion.

Legalising it would only urge them to increase this habbit, thereby corrupting their morals. Henc, we as responsible adults

should have an obligation on our side to do insure this doesn't happen.



Hence, using the common sense that tells a businessman to shutshop if his losses are more than his profits, we in the

prop believe that due to the fact that the harms of abortion far outweigh the benefits, Abortion should in all effect be

banned.