Parents should have freedom of choice  People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2.  1. U.N. General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from United Nations:  >  2. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post:


Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided  Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3.  1. Macnair, D. T. (2010, August). Fragile X Syndrome. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC Health:  2. Doe, J. (2000, December 18). Immune System Disorders. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Time:  3. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute:


It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla Miller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing God, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fixed that. Were they playing God?' 1. Moreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.). Why not extend that ability to plan? Moreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion.  1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:


It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the expense. The anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre-selecting the sex of their children was not a ‘frivolous purpose’. Asked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla Allen replied ‘They are. They’re totally everything I could ever want…but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are?’ 1. No-one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment.  1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health:


Children should not be designed to specifications  Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. ‘It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society’ argues Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel 1. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want…  1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post:


The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with  Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender.  1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News:


Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes  The treatment required for the pre-selection of gender was initially designed for the prevention of disease. Many of the patients now using the revolutionary new treatment are perfectly capable of conceiving healthy children naturally. Dr. Mark Hughes, a director the Genesis Genetics institute, says that 70% of patients wouldn't have needed IVF in the first place, meaning 'healthy, fertile couples are choosing this higher risk, expensive, sometimes painful process when they could conceive otherwise' 1.  1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health:


Parents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make-up of their family. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved. Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. 'All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' 1. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights.  1. Meek, J. (2001, July 5). Baby Blues. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Guardian:


The alternatives to either invasion or atomic bombing are covered in the previous counterpoint. It can only be said that none of them are without a high human cost, though invasion spearheaded by an atomic barrage is surely the worst. The principle of advantage of the conventional bombing option being that it would be easily justifiable as only quantitively different to what the Japanese had already meted out themselves. The blockade similarly has easy justification in not being a deviation from any accepted standards as well as only indirectly attacking the home islands while putting the onus on the Japanese government to avoid starvation. Really in order to find a less costly alternative then diplomacy has to be raised for which refer to the second response argument.


The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack  The US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island. [1]  The US army widely disseminated a figure of half a million casualties for the conquest of Japan. This was however only the figure for public consumption and some calculations went much higher. [2] On top of the US losses the same amount and probably considerably more Japanese deaths would have to be added. The estimates of US losses were so bad that atomic bombs were actually considered for use in clearing the landing beaches.  Chief of Staff George C. Marshall argued “We had to visualize very heavy casualties unless we had enough atomic bombs at the time to supplement the troop action.” [3] Invasion was therefore not really an alternative to the A-bomb use at all. Although the use of the bomb in a battlefield situation might be more justifiable that it was considered shows the ignorance of the radiation effects that might well have been a disaster for US forces as well as Japanese.  [1] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p.59,71  [2] D. M. Giangreco, "A score of bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas": President Truman and casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan’, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007), p.88  [3] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell’, pp.74-5.


Having a weapon is hardly a good argument for using one, society would fall apart if ‘I have a gun thus I must shoot someone’ became an accepted maxim. Since war is policy by other means the ultimate weapon is one that achieves its policy objectives without the need to be actually be used. As to the cost, the $2.2bn translates to a little below $7,000 for each Japanese life taken.


The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender  From late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender.  According to Henry L. Stimson “We, [the administration] felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisors, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire.” [1]  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reckoned that to cause equivalent damage done by the Atomic Bombs using conventional weapons would require 345 B29’s. [2] However it is not the fact that the Atomic bombs saved hundreds of B29 missions that is the crucial element. That is the sheer terror that the destructive power of the atomic bombs. This made the Atomic bombs of a different order to any number of conventional B29 missions and was a crucial factor in bringing about the Japanese surrender. If the fact that a city could be levelled in a single night could make the Japanese surrender they would have done so many months previously, and many times over. Important members of the Japanese government agreed with Stimson’s assessment of the importance of shock. Prime Minister Suzuki said “The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks. I believed such an opportunity could not be afforded by B-29 bombings alone.” [3]  [1] Secretary of War, Henry Stimson quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.27.  [2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  p.24.  [3] Suzuki Kantaro quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p. 35


It can be argued that conventional bombing could have brought about a Japanese surrender without the recourse to the use of the atomic bombs. Compared to conventional bombings the atomic bombs caused disproportionate amounts of civilian casualties. The Strategic Bombing survey estimated that in the 9 months prior to the surrender there were 806,000 Japanese civilian casualties inclusive of A-bombs, of which 330,000 were deaths. Therefore nearly a third of civilian deaths were as a result of the atomic bombings (and that is only counting those who died immediately). In Hiroshima 72% of buildings were destroyed, in Nagasaki 37.5% of buildings were destroyed. However in a conventional raid Yokohama was 47% destroyed in an hours bombing, for the comparatively light cost of 5,000 civilian fatalities. [1] Of course some conventional raids, particularly fireraids caused very heavy casualties, in particular the Tokyo firebombing of March 9th 1945 killed 100,000 and destroyed 15.8 square miles. However that is still three times the area destroyed of Hiroshima. Since the only possible justification for attack on cities is the destruction of infrastructure conventional bombing was similarly effective while being the cause of many fewer civilian deaths.  According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” [2] The accuracy of this prediction has since been called into question, [3] after all the allies dropped far more bombs on Nazi Germany without securing surrender. However the fact remains that the conventional bombing campaign was only just starting to get going and might have achieved decisive results.  Possibly even more important for the prospects of a conventional victory, and one not clouded by the stigma of massive bombing campaigns against civilians, was the maritime blockade. By the end of the war Japan had only 700,000 tons of shipping remaining, she had started the war with 6,337,000 tons. Of 122,000 sailors in the merchant marine 27,000 were killed 89,000 wounded. For an island nation reliant on imports not just to run its industry but also to keep its people fed this was devastating. The result was starvation in the Japanese home islands. After the war it was reported that up to 10 million would die of starvation without American food aid, as a post war report to the Diet (Japanese Parliament) put it ‘the greatest cause of defeat was the loss of shipping’. [4]  [1] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  pp.20, 23-24.  [2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War),  p.26.  [3] Gian Peri Gentile, ‘Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan’, in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) pp.123-4.  [4] Joel Ira Holwitt, “Execute against Japan”: The US decision to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, (College Station TX, 2008) pp.166-9


The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised  There was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them” [1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis.  The cost of building the bomb was enormous. At 2.2 billion dollars the Manhattan project cost about the same as the drive to get to the moon in the sixties, but the comparison is not adjusted for inflation. [2] The vast majority of the cost, and of the 130,000 employed in the project, was not in the development but in the building of the factories to produce the fissile material. The opportunity cost of that 2.2 billion is surely huge, how many more bombers and tanks or how many more medicines and bandages could it have bought? Not using the bomb and squandering that investment would bring that opportunity cost to life; the question is not just how many would die in months more war but how many might not have to build something unused.  [ 1 Robert Oppenheimer quoted by Richard Rhodes, ‘The Atomic Bomb in the Second World War’ in C. C. Kelley (ed.), Remembering the Manhattan Project : Perspectives on the Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Legacy, (River Edge NJ, 2005), p.18  [2] ibid p.22


Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the use of the Atomic Bomb did not raise profound moral questions with allied policymakers. Civilians had been intentionally targeted from the air since the start of the war and both Japanese and German cities had been already subjected to relentless bombardment. There was no compelling reason for politicians to view the Atomic bomb any differently from the London blitz or the Dresden raid. [1]  The Hague conventions had been systemically honoured only in the breach for the previous six years and so would not have given Truman or his advisors any particular heartache. The radiation effects were as yet unknown and so there was no reason to treat atomic bombs as anything more sinister than a mighty conventional bomb would be. Had the radiation been known about then it might have moved them into a category akin to chemical or biological weapons, which were already frowned upon. Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague convention in 1899. [2] This did not of course prevent their widespread use in WWI but the horrified reaction to the use of mustard gas and other agents lead to the Geneva Protocol [3] which came into force in 1928 although the US was not a signatory. In practice Atomic weapons have not been since treated as equivalent to poison gas or other ‘analogous devices’ and thus the International Court of Justice has said that they do not breach the Hague conventions or the Geneva Protocol. [4] Therefore as these were the only international laws in force at the time of the action the dropping the bombs were not illegal acts.  [1] Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered’, Foreign Affairs, vol.74, no.1, Jan.- Feb., 1995. p.135.  [2] Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899;   [3] Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention   [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 54-6.


The justification for the second bomb relies principally upon the argument that Japan would presume there was only one A-bomb if another was not dropped, so the destruction of Nagasaki was a necessary evil to force surrender just as much as that at Hiroshima. Indeed senior Japanese figures did argue that there was only one bomb, and even in one case that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not atomic at all, simply a very big conventional bomb. The Chief of the Naval General Staff Toyoda Soemu thought “it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.” [1] This was a view that Anami Korechika, the army minister, shared until it was shattered by the second bomb although even then he said “The appearance of the atomic bomb does not spell the end of war” [2]  [1] Admiral Toyoda quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.37.  [2] Army Minister Anami quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.40.


A negotiated peace would have been preferable to the dropping of the atomic bombs  It is conventional to argue that Japan was defeated already and so the bombings were unnecessary as Sadao Asada points out this confuses defeat with surrender. However such a position seems equally to confuse surrender with peace. That there had to be an unconditional surrender seems almost unquestioned. Most wars do not end in an unconditional surrender of one side or the other, Japanese defeat was plain so a negotiated peace would normally have been set in motion when the US saw the terrible casualties it might be forced to take in its push for total victory. The Americans learnt of Japanese willingness to negotiate in July, on the 13th Secretary of the Navy Forrestal wrote in his diary “The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today... Togo said further that the unconditional surrender term of the Allies was about the only thing in the way of termination of the war” [1] Stimson, Grew and Forrestal aimed at persuading president Truman to offer the Japanese promise of the preservation of the monarchy as an alternative to unconditional surrender. [2] Ultimately the Potsdam declaration set the unconditional surrender policy in stone. [3] Offering such a condition would certainly have strengthened the peace party within the Japanese cabinet and allowed them to present further resistance by the generals and admirals as endangering the monarchy. [4] However, on its own this would probably not have lead to peace, the cabinet would still have been split 3-3 with the Army and Navy ministers both opposed and with vetoes on policy. Even the most belligerent of the Japanese Cabinet, Army Minister Anami’s conditions were preservation of the Imperial institution, no military occupation of the home islands, Japanese forces were to demobilize and disarm themselves and war criminals were to be prosecuted by the Japanese themselves. [5] While these conditions are obviously ripe for exploitation, would they really disarm and try war criminals? they are not unreasonable. Just because there was no hope that the US would accept these conditions, they fly in the face of the Potsdam Declaration from which the allies would not deviate, does not mean that another alternative to unconditional surrender should not be considered as an alternative to the dropping of the Nuclear bombs.  [1] Secretary Forrestal quoted by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge MA, 2005) p134.  [2] Campbell Craig and Sergay Radchenko, The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War, (New Haven, 2008) p.69  [3] Potsdam Declaration,   [4] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) pp.290-1.  [5] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p. 39.


The bombing was immoral and illegal  The use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use.  Albert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in.  The use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft!  Clearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force.  [1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25.  [2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907   [3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807.  [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6.   [5] ibid. para. 78.  [6] ibid. para. 91.


It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre  The first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima: “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.” [1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped.  There were significant other factors in play as well. Before the second bomb was dropped the Japanese had learnt of the Soviet attack which dashed their last hopes of mediation for a favourable settlement and they were not optimistic of their chances in that conflict, even the army’s planners expected Manchukuo’s capital Changchun would fall in two weeks. [2] Although the Cabinet was deadlocked 3 to 3 this was the case both before and after the news of Nagasaki came in, the point of fact that the US had more than one bomb although a shock to those opposed to surrender did not alter their position. Ultimately the Emperor was forced to intervene on the side of the proponents of peace, his mind had been made up even before the first bomb. It is arguable that Hiroshima was necessary to push him into acting, which was unprecedented but the Nagasaki bombing was entirely superfluous. Historian Sadao Asada’s opinion is that the second bomb was unnecessary. [3]  [1] Emperor Hirohito quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism p.33.  [2] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.36.  [3] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, pp.38, 41-2.


Offering the preservation of the Monarchy was unlikely to have altered the outcome of the conflict by bringing peace before August 6th. This was the only concession to the Japanese that was even considered by the US government. It was thought that even this would be very hard for the American public to swallow. Truman’s personal feeling was also that nothing short of an unconditional surrender would do to avenge Pearl Harbour. [1]  [1] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) p.291.


The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.  Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.  If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.


The Tax Cuts Only Exist Due to An Unjust System  The tax cuts that were created under a Republican government can be strongly linked with the Republican power base. The Republican party relies on a relatively small number of very rich and powerful donors. A tax cut for these people often leads to an increase in funding for the Republican party. Republican representation among the other classes generally comes from other conservative policies as opposed to one fiscal policy.  Further, there is an attitude in the U.S. among many poorer communities that tax regardless of the actual purpose is a bad thing. As such, the Republicans can often reduce taxes for the wealthy without significantly harming their voting base among other communities, despite the fact that these changes often harm poorer communities a great deal.  This means that implementation of the tax cuts was due to a political system that focuses on parties winning elections as opposed to doing what is best for America as a country. As such the system forces the Republicans to pander to the rich for funding and this leads to a worse situation for the country overall. Given that this is true, the tax cuts are unjust and should be removed. [1]  [1] Creamer, Robert “Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Huffington Post. 28/07/2010/


As is mentioned in argument two of the opposition, if tax increases for the rich cause them to leave the country then it is entirely possible that this will lead to even less parity between those left behind and the poor who have to make do with even less tax revenue through redistribution.  Further, the rich are often the people who provide work for the poor through investments in enterprise and new products. Given that this is true, lower taxes for the rich often benefit the poor by allowing the rich to invest more and take more risks with their money. This often leads to innovations and the creation of new goods and services that often the poor may buy into and this allows them to improve the quality of their lives in the long run. [1]  [1] Ortman, Johnathan, “Tax Incentives for Entrepreneurship and Innovation.” Entrepeneurship.org


Removing Tax Cuts Would Reduce the Deficit  Maintaining Bush tax cuts would cost the government $680 billion in revenue over the next ten years according to Paul Krugman.  Given the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating by some credit agencies, it seems prudent to choose to roll back at least some of these cuts in order to please those agencies and convince them that the U.S. is taking serious action to tackle its debt. If this is the case, then they are likely to upgrade or maintain the U.S. credit rating. This is beneficial for the U.S. as it means that in the future it has smaller repayments to make on its current debt and can more readily take on debt in the future.  Further, given that the rich spend a smaller percentage of their money than the poor on consumption, an increase in taxes for the rich will firstly not cause a significant downturn in consumption and secondly, if spent responsibly by the government, will lead to further growth in the future which might cause the government to be able to recoup the money that it spends through higher tax revenue from a growing economy in the future. [1]  [1] Krugman, Paul “Now That’s Rich.” New York Times. 22/08/2010


Under current economic circumstances, the deficit is bad, and a downgrade of the credit rating has bad effects. However, stimulation of the economy during a recession is needed more.  If the economy is stimulated through lower taxes, it might cause it to recover faster and move into a boom period earlier. If this is the case, then even if the lower credit rating results in higher repayment costs, the economy returning to growth earlier will mean tax revenue is higher earlier. If that is true then it is possible that the government will recoup the cost of the tax cuts later on with higher growth.  Secondly, the extension of Bush tax cuts for a two year period is unlikely to have any lasting impact on such a large deficit. Whilst the rich have a lot of money, it is entirely within their power to use accountants and other means such as offshore bank accounts to ensure that they do not bear the full brunt of the change. Bush tax cuts caused more rich people to keep their money in the U.S. This meant that despite the lower taxes, the greater amount of money kept in the U.S. meant that overall there was a net profit from the change. [1]  [1] Twerkel, Amanda “Cantor Admits Extending Bush Tax Cuts Would “Dig The Hole Deeper on the Deficit – But He Doesn’t Care.”” Think Progress. 02/08/2010


Removing Tax Cuts for the Rich Promotes Equality.  The removal of tax cuts for the rich will help create greater equality in the U.S.  Firstly it can do this by direct means, taxing the rich to a greater extent than is currently done would mean, obviously that the rich have less money and are thus more equal to the poor in income. However, further to this, money gained from such tax cuts that is not being reserved for deficit reduction can be redistributed to the poor in order to allow them to progress further in society.  Income inequality within the U.S. is significantly worse than in most other Western liberal democracies. It often leads to problems of the poor feeling disenfranchised within a society where they feel that the rich have all the influence. Poverty can lead to crime, motivated either by want and pure physical need, or by a distorted sense of entitlement fostered by consumer culture. A lack of parity in an economic system may be interpreted as justifying participation in crimes with an economic component, such as drug dealing, fraud or involvement with organised crime. [1]  [1] Garofalo, Pat, “Stephen Moore Calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.” Think Progress. 08/07/2010.


There are a number of social ties that the rich have to the U.S.A. with many of them having inherited wealth or having families in the U.S.  Moving to another country is inconvenient as it leads to the removal of all of these social ties, further the actual cost of moving is often enough to prevent them from doing so.  Further, many rich Americans have an attachment to America itself, either as a land where their parents prospered or as a land where they managed to earn their own wealth. As such, there are emotional ties to the country. Many have political influence in the U.S. which they would be unable to take advantage of should they leave the country. [1]  Finally, it should be noted that states which routinely impose extremely low rates of personal income tax, or which refrain from taxing the bonuses paid to businesses’ senior managers obtain the majority of their state funding from natural resources revenues. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest and most active oil extractors and exporters in the world. It can make up for shortfalls in personal tax revenues by controlling the price and supply of the oil that it drills.  [1] Confessore, Nicholas, “Taxes Not Seen as Making Rich Flee New York,” New York Times, 18/03/2009


As mentioned, tax cuts for the rich offer the least direct stimulus owing to the small percentage of their income that the wealthiest Americans spend on consumption. Often what is taxed is money that simply sits in bank accounts accruing interest. Given, then, that the super rich are a tiny portion of the population, despite their wealth, the immediate change the policy will have on the economy is fairly negligible.  Opposition may talk about investment in businesses, however the risks that businesses take and their benefits are only truly reflected in long term statistics, which are irrelevant in the case of recession prevention as in a few years it is likely that there will not be fears of another recession. [1]  [1] “A Real Debate On Taxes,” New York Times, 23/08/2010


Expiring the Tax Cut Would Harm Small Business  A number of small businesses are owned by individuals who pay taxes as individuals. However, being small business owners they often earn enough to put them in the highest tax brackets. Given that this is true, the tax rate that these business owners would face following the abolition of the Bush tax cuts would be a rate higher than most big business. It seems unjust that small business owners would pay rates of tax at 36% or 39.6% given that businesses such as Goldman Sachs pay lower tax.  Further, the expiration of a tax cut for these small businesses means that the owners will often project less personal gain from projects that the business might undertake. A simple example (for use in a debate) is of a project that costs $100 to invest in and has a 10% chance of success, returning $1100. A tax rise could theoretically cause the return for the owner to fall from $1100 to $1000. This means that now a project that would have been profitable is no longer so and thus the owner won’t risk taking the project up.  This means that fewer projects are taken up in the thousands of small businesses that exist throughout the economy. As such, excess taxation stifles the innovations that small businesses often provide,costing the economy a great deal more in lost profits and lost market-share than is returned in tax revenue in the long run. [1]  [1] Murdock, Deroy, “Halt Reckless Spending and Extend Bush Tax Cuts,” Deseret News, 26/07/2010


Expiring the Tax Cuts Would Cause Investor Movement Abroad  As mentioned in the previous arguments, the expiration of Bush tax cuts would firstly cause investors and people in the upper brackets to resort to tax avoidance methods, such as placing money in foreign accounts and using legal lacunae to reduce their tax liability.  However in a world where the upper management of most businesses can be handled from other countries, it is prudent for those facing higher taxes in the U.S. to move away to avoid them. Most countries in the U.A.E, for example, have incredibly low tax rates for the entire population.  The reason that many American taxpayers in upper brackets have not moved away to take advantage of this is because the tax cuts and the Republican government have kept them satisfied enough that there is no reason to go through the inconvenience of moving.  The removal of the tax cuts could easily provide this impetus owing to the fact that they might result in further higher taxes for the rich down the line. As such, tax increases of this nature could cause the rich to leave the country and cease paying tax altogether. [1]  [1] Bruner, John, “Where America’s Money is Moving,” Forbes, 14/06/2010


Expiring Tax Cuts Would Cause a Double Dip Recession  Whilst the rich spend proportionately less of their income than the poor, the rest of their income is often invested in other areas and financial vehicles, boosting the economy in both the short and long term. In the short term this money allows businesses to take more risks owing to a greater pool of money to offset the risk, alongside lower interest rates. In the long term, these risks often lead to innovations that help the economy overall.  In increasing the tax burden on the rich, the spending and investment that wealthy individuals partake in is cut off, preventing these areas of the economy from growing. Recessions and recession prevention are often reliant upon public perception of an economy’s general health and the extent of its exposure to less stable economies. Due to this feedback mechanism, it is possible, therefore, that an unfounded belief that tax rises could obstruct economic growth might cause panic amongst the media and the populace. A recession might come about through the mere expectation that there will be a recession.  In fact, given that the majority of the media is controlled by the rich, it is within their best interest to report that there will be a crisis if there is a tax increase so that they can claim the policy was at fault in the future. [1]  [1] Vaughan, Martin and Mckinnon, John, “Democrats Dissent on Bush Cuts,” Wall Street Journal


Firstly, the harm to small business from such tax cuts could easily be mitigated by providing some measure of exception for small business owners. The U.S. already provides subsidies for small businesses that show signs of innovation and as such it seems logical that another exception could be added to prevent harm to small businesses.  Further, less that 2% of tax returns citing small business revenue come from the top two tax brackets. Most small business owners simply aren’t part of the top income bracket and further most investors in the top income brackets do not rely on small business revenue as their primary source of income. The harm should this policy go through without exception is much smaller than portrayed by opposition.  Further, the focus on small business is also a result of a “supply side” economic policy that has failed. Whilst the Bush system focused mainly upon supporting the private sector in order to create jobs, it has emerged after eight years to have had almost no effect on the number of Americans being employed, with most changes coming from government hiring. Small business makes a contribution to the economy, but nowhere near the level that opposition need for the argument to hold water. [1]  [1] Gale, William, “Five Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts,” Washington Post, 01/08/2010


Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents.


Having children is emotionally draining for parents  The level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”*  *Goldberg, 2003,


Not having children promotes gender equality  Social and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division.  *Goodley, 2011,


Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids.


Not having children is environmentally friendly  The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment.  * Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006,


Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents  Parenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says "Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood."**  *Kingston, 2009,   **Goldberg, 2003,


Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.  *Bayaz, 2009,   **Newsweek, 2008,


Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.


There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women.


There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.


Having children is extraordinarily expensive  For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc.  *Boy Scouts of America, 2011,


It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.  Four out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane.  *Shah 2010,


There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary.


People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society.


Having children is the essence of existence for every creature  The most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.  * Collins English Dictionary, 2003,


The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.  Not only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes.


Having children guarantees support for parents  From parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide.  *Worldcrunch, 2011,


Having children is our duty and responsibility  We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.  *The Economist Online, 2011,


Having children can be counterproductive in achieving a desirable society. First of all, having children is by no means necessary for possessing all those valuable traits. All of them can be developed though other experiences as well. Secondly, having kids may actually lead to society being less desirable. For instance, parents being exhausted by constant absorption with their children become less productive. They can also become disillusioned or frustrated by their offspring, which will result in their general bitterness.


There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.


There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure.


Universal individual desires  Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition. [1]  [1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101


The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1]  [1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.


Universal human nature  Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.


Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'.


Universal benefits of human rights  All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there. [1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852. [2]  [1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997  [2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995


The labelling of a right as 'fundamental' ensures it is protected against opportunistic or populist attacks which may not fully consider the long term. As long as we limit our definition of 'fundamental rights' to those things needed and desired by all humans universally, we should avoid enshrining 'rights' which are only needed in some times and places.


Fundamental human rights were 'new' to all cultures once, but this does not mean that they have not always been an underlying fact. Arguments surrounding different cultural perceptions of rights and 'cultural relativism' are almost universally used by the powerful interests in certain cultures to justify their abuse of the human rights of those with less power in their cultures, for example leaders of authoritarian regimes who protect their own power at the expense of the freedom of their people and justify it on the basis of 'Asian values'. The recognition of fundamental human rights will always require change in a culture or locality that did not previously recognise them, but this does not mean that they are not universal on the basis of needs and desires that do exist in all cultures.


Human rights contradictions  Many human rights are not compatible with each other. If two things are both 'fundamental' then they must both be equally true and important. However the protection of any human right requires the violation of others. For example the right to security of person requires the existence of a police force, which must be funded by taxes coercively obtained, which violates the right to property. Similarly the right of a wife to divorce her husband to protect her own happiness may compromise his own happiness. A right cannot be 'fundamental' if it must be weighed up, balanced against and possibly compromised in light of another 'fundamental' right, as this would mean they exist in conflict with each other.


Danger of dogma  Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations. [1] Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful.  [1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006.


Relative perceptions of human rights  If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew [1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms. [2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA [3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights [4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights. [5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights.  [1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998.  [2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000.  [3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787.  [4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.  [5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010.


It is possible to establish a hierarchy of rights whereby only the most important are the 'fundamental' human rights. The fulfilment of the needs we all cannot live without, such as food, shelter and security of person, should be given the greatest priority, as they are all equally necessary for life, and need not be balanced against each other as they are all equally necessary.


There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus, less effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more intensive punishment. Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions1. Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals2. Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region2. Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty2. 1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.


The death penalty deters crime.  The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime. The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1. Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2. On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect in the United States1. In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011


Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively rare occurrences1. In 1998, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons. Given a total prison population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents just over half a percent of the total prison population. On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes while on death row. Those sentenced to death may be even more eager to escape prior to their execution than those awaiting life in prison, so it is not true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes. 1 Suellentrop, Chris. "How Often Do Prisoners Escape?" Slate. February 1, 2001.


Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons.  POINT  The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where keeping people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding1. In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered authorities to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed overcrowded3. As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences. 1 Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons: Cruel and unusual." The Miami Herald. May 30, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 2 Martinez, Michael. "California officials: We'll fix prison crowding, won't free 33,000." CNN. May 24,2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 3 "Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded." The Guardian. August 25, 2009. Accessed June 8, 2011


It helps the victims' families achieve closure.  The death penalty can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will not have to worry about parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able to achieve a greater degree of closure. Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system'1. Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done'1. 1 Goldbery, Michelle. "The Closure Myth". Salon. January 21, 2003.Accessed June 30,2011


Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. While some might take comfort in knowing the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable knowing that the state killed another human being on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not only fails to provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed from experience it'2. Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is simply not about what the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the alleged preferences of victims' families. 1 Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. Accessed June 9, 2011. 2 Rahka, Naseem. "Capital Punishment: Muhammad and the 'Closure' Myth." November 1, 2009. Accessed June 29, 2011.


Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the expenses associated with death penalty cases1. Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs2. Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime, not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a justification for the death penalty. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.


There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice should remain above the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare, whereby the murder of one family member justifies a revenge attack against the murderers' family. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York University Law Professor Anthony Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment 'attempts to vindicate one murder by committing a second murder. And the second murder is more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and done with great ceremony in the name of us all'1. The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to death', but scripture itself, which preaches mercy just as vigorously as it does retribution1. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.


Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes.  POINT  The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes while in prison. While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them. 1 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011 2 Davis, Laura. "Crime and Punishment: the view from a convicted criminal." The Independent. May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.


The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye.  The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty. As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.


Wrongful convictions are particularly rare in cases where the death penalty is sentenced. The lengthy and thorough procedures associated with death penalty cases offer sufficient protection against wrongful convictions. If there is any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, they will not receive the sentence. Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful conviction, there is generally a lengthy appeals process for them to make their case. For example, in 1993, Alex Hernandez was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 10-year old girl in Chicago; he was released a number of years later due to his lawyers proving both a paucity of evidence and the confession of her actual killer1. As a result, very few innocent people receive the death penalty, and the legality of capital punishment does not increase wrongful or prejudicial convictions2. 1 Turow, Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 2 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011


A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others. By sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution. As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks involved.


The death penalty is a financial burden on the state.  Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far outweighs the costs of alternative punishments such as life in prison1. A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the intensive jury selection, trials, and long appeals process that are required by capital cases2. The cost of death row presents an additional financial burden associated with the death penalty. Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are estimated at $500,000 for every case in which the death penalty is not sought1. In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life2. This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much greater benefit to the criminal justice system- greater policing, education, and other crime-preventing measures that are far more cost-effective. 1 Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times. November 18, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2011 2 "High Cost of Death Row." The New York Times. September 27, 2009.


The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice.  Juries are imperfect1, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can pervert justice in a couple of ways. First, implementation of the death penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial biases2, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst those who killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be executed than those who kill men2. Regional differences in attitudes towards the death penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into sentencing. For instance, in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County2. Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by biasing juries towards returning an innocent verdict when they would otherwise be deemed guilty3. When they are told that the consequence of a guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged. In this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong the difficult process for victims' families. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Turow , Scot. "To kill or not to kill," The New Yorker, January 6, 2003. Accessed June 3, 2011, 3 Death Penalty Information Center. Accessed June 8, 2011.


Wrongful convictions are irreversible.  There are an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the death penalty1. So far, more than 130 people who had been sentenced to death have been exonerated2. In many cases, unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be proven innocent. The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful execution alone should be enough to prove the death penalty is not justifiable. 1 European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.


State-sanctioned killing is wrong.  The state has no right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the process. Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment2. On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in the taking of a life, which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the death penalty. 1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 European Union Delegation to the USA. "EU Policy Against the Death penalty." October 10, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2011.


The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment. If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected. Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found. Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980.


Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011.


Excluding cases of rape, the woman exercises any right to choose in causing conception initially. Afterward, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.


Women have a right to choose  Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet.


Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1%1 of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion.  1 L.B Finner et al


There are practical problems with banning abortion  Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.1  Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions.2 Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions.  1 WARSAW BUSINNES JOURNAL


Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle.  Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here.  As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place.


What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics.


Rape victims have no choice when it comes to getting pregnant, therefore they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy  Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child.  In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".  1 SECASA


There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy  There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus.  Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1  1 PRO-Life Information


Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they:  a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late  b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation.


Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice.


Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior  Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. In Mexico City, a year after abortion was legalized, the frequency increased.1  1 LIFESITE NEWS