Tag Archive | "abortion"

Resolved, that the minimum age for obtaining the morning after pill be lowered to fourteen.

RU-486, also known as the “morning after pill,” was approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA in 2000. The drug, designed to be used in the days following unprotected sex, has been proven to be an effective form of contraception. Currently in the United States, women the age of 17 or above can obtain access to these drugs at clinics and doctor’s offices. Supporters argue that as girls become more sexually active at a younger age, that these and other forms of birth control should be made available with or without parental consent. In doing so, they argue, women would be given the access they need in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, rather than carrying a fetus to term. On the other hand, opponents of lowering the age, and of the pill in general, argue that lowering the age requirement promotes unsafe sexual practices and risky behaviors among very young people. In addition, they argue that the federal government should be deterring people from having abortions and that lowering the age will only increase the overall number of abortions performed. Is lowering the minimum age to fourteen appropriate or are we only opening the door to lower the age for other risky behaviors?

KS/MARCH 2011

Posted in Domestic AffairsComments (2)

Resolved, that abortion be considered infanticide in the eyes of the law.

Infanticide is defined as “the killing of an infant.” Proponents of this resolution argue that abortion is synonymous with infanticide, as a young, underdeveloped life is being killed. They further postulate that providing a legal definition of life limited to only after the start of the third trimester of pregnancy harms the sanctity of human life; they believe considering an embryo to be less human than a fetus is patently immoral. Opponents point out that the embryo is not technically an infant, and that labeling abortions as infanticides exacerbates the negative bias against abortion.  Furthermore, they claim the argument against abortion is largely derived from religious opinion, which should not affect laws regarding women’s freedom of choice. Abortion may prevent harm to a mother’s life or be the only option for a victim of sexual assault.  Is abortion a “necessary evil” or simply evil?

Last edited by KS on FEB 2011

Posted in Domestic Affairs, ReligionComments (2)

Resolved, that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional.

As one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history, Roe V Wade determined that women have the constitutional right to privacy, which extends to abortion. Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right.” Some critics of the decision feel that Roe V Wade actually created the right to privacy, one that was not in the constitution, but simply expanded on the 9th amendment as one of the “enumerated rights.” Did the courts expand on the “enumerated rights” of the ninth amendment in an unconstitutional way or did they do their job and protect the rights of all citizens?

Posted in Domestic Affairs, Hot TopicsComments (2)

Resolved, that pharmacists be required to provide the Plan B morning-after birth control pill to women as young as 15.

In 2006 the FDA ruled that Plan B, a contraceptive drug that requires the user to take two pills within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, should be available to women over 18 without prescription. Yet, recently a district judge in New York ordered the FDA to lower the legal age to obtain Plan B without a prescription to 17. Advocates have lauded the decision as groundbreaking and progressive, while others feel that lowering the legal age to 17 does not go far enough.  Citing the high rate of teen pregnancies in the U.S., many argue that pharmacists should be required to provide the Plan B morning-after birth control pill to women as young as 15.  The two years in between may not constitute a significant difference in biological condition or maturity.  However, conservative groups and critics of contraception have censured plans to increase the availability of Plan B, claiming it will result in increased teenage promiscuity.  Many claim that allowing 15 year-olds to procure birth control pills is tantamount to tacitly encouraging children to have sex. Others even postulate that the morning-after pill could be detrimental to the health of a developing teenage body. Should teenagers even be allowed to obtain contraceptive medicines? How should we determine who can access contraceptive measures and who can not?

Posted in Domestic Affairs, Pop CultureComments (0)