| |
| | Introduction |
| | Author:Nisaar Nadiadwala ( India ) I am a trainer in panel discussions, debates and public speeches for the past 8 years in Mumbai, India Created: Thursday, May 21, 2009 Last Modified: Thursday, January 14, 2010 |
| | Context |
| | The definition of success differs from person to person and field to field. One could take economic success as a touchstone to label a person successful in life, ignoring his of her other failures, like divorce, health, inefficiency, etc. Others may look at a capacity for overcoming challenges, irrespective of what someone earns and the nature of their private life. So who is a successful person and who is a failure? Do school and college grades and examination results provide a way of predicting or ensuring future success? If that is true, then we should encourage as many young people as possible to go to university and work hard to gain formal qualifications. But is it true? Aren’t some college drop-outs like Bill Gates and Richard Branson hugely successful icons of success? And should we automatically consider the millions of young people who have not had the opportunity to gain academic certificates to be failures in life? |
| | Arguments |
| Pros | Cons |
| | | |
| Whether one is proposing marriage, applying for a job or looking for a new business partner, the first thing people ask is, "what do you do?" In other words they judge you by your academic qualifications. No bio-data résumé or curriculum vitae is acceptable without the inclusion of education qualifications. Therefore it is an unannounced rule of both the corporate world and the social world that a man's acquisition of academic qualifications is a giant leap towards opportunities in every walk of life. | Success never depends upon grades. If success and opportunities were measured by grades then the corporate world and potential marriage partners would not ask for biodata in résumés, where other qualifications are also mentioned. Nor would they interview the prospects in order to find out what they are like as people, rather they would give a blind appointment to the people with the best paper qualifications. So qualifications alone are never enough, success depends upon physical characteristics, personality, and a willingness to work hard. | |
| | | |
| Academic qualifications ensure you have the basics in learning. If your basic grounding in Maths, Science and Languages is strong, you can get success in life because mastering these subjects allows you to calculate, to innovate and to communicate. These essentials for success cannot be learned without professional help – in schools and colleges. And in order to prove that someone has acquired this knowledge, they are tested. If their learning is satisfactory, then they are given a certificate to indicate their competence – an academic qualification. | Success is not getting a grade or a degree, if that was it then why aren't all the graduates from Harvard, Oxford or Cambridge uniformly successful? The rule of success is hard work and destiny of course. If a student of engineering gets good grades but he is not practically effective in relationship-buildings and solving crises or proper planning, even though he may be successful in getting a job but it will not lead him far. On the way he is sure to fade out. | |
| | | |
| There may be a few people like Bill Gates and others who have made it, in spite of their drop-out background and lack of academic qualifications, but can this be generalized? Should I tell my child to leave schooling because if Bill Gates can do it they can also do it? A few exceptions cannot be taken as a general rule. And even for those few high-profile people who have made it without academic qualifications, let’s ask a simple question - if you look at a global directory of successful people you might find a few hundred like Bill Gates, but what about those millions of doctors, engineers, IT professionals, lawyers, and advocates who rely upon their formal education? Can you run a country without them? And could even Bill Gates have prospered without the skills of these IT professionals and engineers? | If you look into a directory of successful people who are doctors, engineers and IT professionals, then you will notice that many of them dream to be employed by people like Bill Gates or Richard Branson, who are prosperous despite not having college degrees. In other words, prosperity does not depend upon academic qualifications but upon opportunities provided by entrepreneurs who may not be necessarily be highly educated. Successful entrepreneurs even benefit from not having academic qualifications, because going to college and taking examinations forces people to learn and think like millions of other graduates. This actually makes it less likely that they will come up with the truly mould-breaking insights and “disruptive” ideas on which successful innovations and new business models are built. | |
| | | |
| We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one fine morning someone comes and says that this is not required for success. When asked for proof, they say "look at Bill Gates!" But success isn’t a just matter of building a huge firm from scratch and making billions of dollars – by that definition, only a tiny number of people in the world could be considered successful. No, success is about making the most of your talents and abilities, and that requires dedication and study in academic institutions that will stretch you intellectually. | Unfortunately the materialistic world has changed the concept of success. It has become a rat-race where every student chases grades and therefore the entire perception of success and prosperity has changed. Rather than studying to reach our full potential, we do it because we think it is necessary for a successful career. So we spend ten years in school and a few more years of our precious life in college to get educated, then more time is passed in hunting for jobs. Even after that we may find ourselves in the wrong profession and lacking job satisfaction. And then recession comes along, when we are told that our wealth has been blown away by the foolishness of expensive fat-salaried CEOs. Now comes a time when we go to work with a constant fear of losing the job we don’t enjoy. Is this the correct understanding of prosperity? So now the definition of success is changed. If you are able to save your job then you are successful! | |
| | | |
| An academic education gives people a rounded experience of life, with opportunities to meet people from a wide range of backgrounds and to consider the importance in life of values and culture. These are necessary things required to label a person successful in all aspects of life. More broadly, widespread further education makes us a civilized nation. It uplifts our morals and ethics by exposing us to the great thinkers of the past. It makes us aware of our rights and liberties, and helps entrench a liberal democracy with active citizens and a lively media. | Can academic qualification stop us from becoming a civilization of drunkards, rapists and war-mongers, marked by broken families, domestic violence and crime? If you look at countries where the largest number of people have higher academic qualifications, they are the ones most affected by social breakdown. And would you call the conduct of the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan a successful example of the superiority of the US economy and society? In fact true success is shown in having the moral courage to speak out against atrocities and injustice, showing generosity towards the poor, and respecting our parents. These are characteristics which are found in people from all social and educational backgrounds, but often absent in many educated Americans and Europeans, in spite of the universities they have been to and the grades they have achieved. | |
| | | |
| Academic qualifications may not be enough on their own to ensure success, but they indicate that their possessor has got what it takes. Imagine a new world order in education, where people don't study but join their business or look for jobs straight from school, with no qualifications to prove their worth. How would employers choose between them? Academic grades are important, because in order to gain good exam grades or a degree, students have to work hard, master demanding skills and learn a great deal of specialist knowledge. These are valuable attributes for success in any field of endeavour, which is why employers value academic qualifications. Simply getting into a good college indicates to a future employer that the student is out of the ordinary. | Often academic qualifications have no real relevance to the jobs graduates are employed to do. A few decades ago employers in areas such as banking, engineering, management and government service recruited people straight from school at the age of 15 or 16, training them on the job and promoting them to higher levels of responsibility according to their ability. Today none of these jobs has changed very much, but all now require applicants have a university degree. Why has this changed? One reason is that the upper and middle classes are trying to protect their own jobs – demanding new recruits have expensive academic qualifications excludes many talented young people from poorer backgrounds. | |
| | | |
| | Motions |
| | This House believes that academic qualifications ensure success in life This House believes that educational qualifications make our society worth living in That we should value academic qualifications This House believes grades maketh man |
| | Useful Sites |
| |
|
| | Useful Books |
| |
|
| | Themes |
| |
| | Discuss |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| |
| | Introduction |
| | Author:Joe Devanny ( United Kingdom ) Joe Devanny reads Politics at Cambridge University. He was President of the Cambridge Union Society [and has reached the semi-finals of the World Universities' Debating Championships]. Created: Friday, September 29, 2000 Last Modified: Monday, April 13, 2009 |
| | Context |
| | The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The question is whether one should allow the termination of a child whilst it is in its mother’s womb. For some, the question is even more fundamental: at what stage is the foetus in the womb to be regarded as a child? The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments (that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the mother’s right to choose as the primary concern. Whilst abortion has been accepted by the American state since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early 1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the face of criticism from Women’s and other lobby-groups. |
| | Arguments |
| Pros | Cons |
| | | |
| Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. 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 foetus 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. Not everyone agrees that foetuses of two, four, eight, or even twenty weeks are children (see point 3). | Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right – the child’s right to life. What is 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. | |
| | | |
| 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 foetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women travelled 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 ‘third way’ of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. In addition, 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. | Unborn children cannot articulate their right to life; theirs are vulnerable lives and as such must be protected. 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 liberalisation here. Whether we should actively restrain would-be ‘abortion tourists’ from travelling is a separate question, but one which can be answered in the affirmative given what is at stake. In ordinary circumstances such a move would indeed be draconian, but where a restriction in someone’s freedom is the price to pay for protecting an innocent life, then so be it. | |
| | | |
| Are we really talking about a ‘life?’ At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own ‘existence,’ really commensurable with the killing of a ‘person?’ There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly ‘human’ life is. | The question of what life is can certainly be answered: it is sacred, inviolable and absolute. It is unquestionable that the foetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the traits to which you refer. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide. | |
| | | |
| 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 foetus. | Whilst these are different circumstances, and such medical emergencies are tragic, it is by no means obvious that the abortion is to be performed. The ‘mother vs. child’ dilemma is one which defies solution, and aborting to preserve one of the lives sets a dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to kill a person in order to save another. This is a clear, and unpalatable, case of treating a human-being as a means to an end. | |
| | | |
| It is not just medical emergency that presents compelling grounds for termination. Woman, 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. | Whilst an appalling crime has been committed, is it the fault of the unborn child? The answer is, of course, no. Denying someone life, because of the circumstances of their conception is as unfair as anything else imaginable. | |
| | | |
| Finally, 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. | 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 water-shed between life and termination? The practise of eugenics is roundly condemned by all civilised countries. | |
| | | |
| | Motions |
| | This House Would Allow Abortion on Demand This House Believes in the Woman’s Right to Choose |
| | Useful Sites |
| |
|
| | Useful Books |
| |
|
| |
| | Introduction |
| | Author:Ranjan K. Agarwal ( Canada ) Ranjan Agarwal is currently working at a Toronto law firm. He graduated from the Joint LL.B./M.A. (International Affairs) program at the University of Ottawa. He is a former Canadian national debating champion, top ten speaker at Worlds, and winner of the Created: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Last Modified: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 |
| | Context |
| | Australia, Canada and the United States of America have struggled with the aboriginal question since the first colonialists arrived from Britain. In North America and Australia, there existed large groups of nomadic people, today commonly referred to as aboriginals or First Nations. The settlers made treaties with the aboriginals. In some cases, the treaties regulated the exchange of goods between the settlers and the aboriginals. In other cases, the aboriginals and the settlers made treaties of peace and friendship, promising to act as allies against other invading colonials. What was an equal partnership between the aboriginals and the settlers deteriorated. In North America and Australia, aboriginals were pushed onto reserves as their numbers dwindled due to small pox infection and tribal infighting. Aboriginal lands were used by settlers to establish farms and colonies. The Crown took advantage of the aboriginal’s language barrier to interpret treaties in favour of the settlers.Today, aboriginals in all three countries, but especially Australia and Canada, are using the court system to protect their treaty rights. Issues that are being litigated include whether aboriginals have a historic right to fish, hunt or trade on certain lands and whether aboriginals have title to lands seized by the Crown in violation of their treaties. Aboriginals are also struggling with issues of self-government and criminal justice. |
| | Arguments |
| Pros | Cons |
| | | |
| The aboriginals and the settlers made a treaty. Those treaties were violated by the settlers in an effort to further their own colonial aims. To protect those historical agreements and to right those wrongs, aboriginals must be treated differently than the rest of society. In Australia and Canada, the courts have held that aboriginal peoples have the right to claim title in specific circumstances. Similarly, in Canada, aboriginal groups can seek certain rights if they can prove the historic existence of that right. | The treaties were made by a colonial power in a different age and time. Further, those rights were violated by settlers in that age and time. Today’s democratic governments, having to deal with large populations of non-aboriginals, including immigrants and visible minorities, should not be expected to bear the burden of those previous colonial powers. Land title claims do not just affect farming lands in rural Australia or Canada; aboriginal groups have mounted title claims regarding large portions of Melbourne and Vancouver. It is unrealistic for modern governments to simply turn over metropolitan land and ignore the rights of the current inhabitants. | |
| | | |
| The historic abuse and mistreatment of aboriginals is to blame for the high rate of crime and drug addiction in these communities. In both Canada and Australia, aboriginal children were forcefully removed from their homes and educated in "residential schools". That practice has been the target of large-scale lawsuits, in part because of the violence and racist attitudes that permeated those institutions. In Australia, 25% of all aboriginals are unemployed and their life expectancy is 20 years less than for non-aboriginals. In order to correct these problems, modern governments must take responsibility for their historical actions and give aboriginals as many advantages as necessary for them to successfully integrate into the larger community. This includes funding for aboriginal education, aboriginal-oriented criminal justice programs and compensation. | Problems faced by aboriginal communities are not unique to any one group in society. Further, those problems can be linked to the practice of isolating aboriginal communities on reserves far from urban centres. If aboriginal peoples were to integrate into the larger community, by moving into urban centres and participating in mainstream education and social services programs, crime rates and addiction rates would decrease. By remaining on reserves, aboriginal peoples are trapped in a cycle of poverty than cannot be combated. | |
| | | |
| Aboriginal culture will be lost if modern governments do not help to protect it. In both North America and Australia, aboriginal populations are dwindling. Aboriginal language and cultural practices, numbering in the hundreds, are either extinct or endangered. Aboriginal language and culture is intimately connected to the land. By removing the rights of aboriginals to freely hunt or fish or travel, the culture is being lost. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this problem when it granted two aboriginal groups the right to uninhibited access to national parks for the purpose of performing sacred rituals. | Cultures, including aboriginal traditions, evolve and morph through time and the interaction with other cultures. Pre-contact, aboriginal peoples did not use guns to hunt; today, it is unlikely that an aboriginal person would shoot a deer or elk with anything but a hunting rifle. Similarly, aboriginal fishers are using modern developments, like trawlers, to make their catch. These practices are not "aboriginal culture". Their modern takes on historical practices do not deserve protection. Aboriginal languages may be endangered but that is a product of their irrelevancy in a modern, English-speaking society. In North America and Australia, English is the lingua franca of business and government. Aboriginal groups can attempt to protect their languages, but they should do so in the same way as any other minority, for example, Asian immigrants. | |
| | | |
| In the U.S., affirmative action is an acceptable way of "levelling the playing field". Historic wrongs against aboriginal peoples have created a cycle of poverty, under-education and unemployment. Aboriginal peoples may have lower test scores or missed job opportunities because of this history. As such, quotas for university seats or public service positions can help redress community wrongs and create a stronger aboriginal identity. | Differential protection for aboriginals is "affirmative action". Affirmative action, either in an employment or educational setting, does not necessarily lead to advancement for the affected group. Further, it can create resentment amongst the majority. Aboriginal peoples should not be told that their historical hardship justifies lower standards and automatic acceptance. | |
| | | |
| | Motions |
| | This House calls for a new deal for Aboriginal peoples This House believes First Nations deserve constitutional recognition This House would protect aboriginal culture |
| | Useful Sites |
| |
|
| | Useful Books |
| |
| |||||||||||
| | |||||||||||
| | Introduction |
| | Author:Tom Hamilton ( United Kingdom ) Tom is studying for a PhD in ethics and philosophy of religion at Durham University. He was a Worlds finalist in Toronto in 2002. Created: Monday, December 02, 2002 Last Modified: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 |
| | Context |
| | Teenage pregnancy is a stressful experience, and many people would agree that it would be sensible for a pregnant unmarried teenage girl to seek advice from a responsible adult. Parental involvement laws would make notification of pregnancy and consent for abortion from one or both parents mandatory. Such laws exist in 43 US states, but are enforced in only 32. Most of the statutes apply to young women under 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should a young woman be unable to involve her parents. Most of them include exceptions for medical emergencies. In principle, of course, similar laws could be introduced anywhere where abortion is legal. The definition of underage will vary from culture to culture, and will need clear explanation by the proposing speakers.NB I would strongly recommend that this debate avoid arguments about the morality of abortion in general. The motion necessarily assumes that abortion is legal, so questions about whether or not it should be are beside the point - arguments against abortion in general would point to the need for an outright ban, not for parental consent for it. |
| | Arguments |
| Pros | Cons |
| | | |
| Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery: abortion should not be an exception. There are plenty of other things children are not allowed to do without their parents’ consent: tattooing, ear-piercing, school activities such as school trips; parents can withdraw their children from school religious activities without their children’s consent; under-16s are not allowed to get married without their parents’ consent. Abortion is at least as important a decision as any of these. | Parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the baby’s mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order: in effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition. | |
| | | |
| Parents have a right to know what their children are doing: they are legally responsible for their care, and as parents they have a proper interest in any case. Any good parent would want to know if their daughter were having an abortion; any good parent would want to help her daughter make a good decision on the matter, and to prevent her making a bad decision. | There are good reasons for not telling parents of a pregnancy. Parents who are opposed to abortion may force their daughter to continue with a pregnancy against her wishes, even at a risk to her health or life. Disclosing that you are pregnant necessarily requires that you disclose that you are sexually active: some parents may disapprove of this to the extent that they throw their daughter out of the house, or become physically or emotionally abusive. | |
| | | |
| The parents of teenagers have to live with the consequences of teenage motherhood: they often bear a particularly large responsibility for looking after the children, because teenage mothers are usually 1) single; 2) living at home; 3) unemployed; 4) in full-time education. They are economically dependent, and unable to give all of their time to their children. If the mother’s parents are going to have to look after their grandchild and to live with it, they should have a say on whether it is born in the first place. | This is irrelevant, because the proposal is not that parents should be able to compel their daughters to have abortions, only that they should be able to veto an abortion. The fact that parents of teenage mothers often play a major role in their grandchildren’s upbringing does not mean that they are allowed to insist that their children should produce grandchildren for them against their will. | |
| | | |
| The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important. | This measure is unnecessary for stable and supportive families, in which daughters may well choose to discuss their pregnancy with their parents in any case, and ineffective and cruel in unstable and troubled families, as they do nothing to transform the unhelpful atmosphere in which the daughter is reluctant to tell her parents she is pregnant, and simply make the family situation worse. | |
| | | |
| In exceptional cases, we appreciate that it may be inappropriate for a child to tell her parents she is pregnant: where she is estranged from them, for example, where she has been abused by them, or where telling them would present a serious foreseeable threat to her safety. In such cases, the courts could allow a waiver so that she would not have to tell them, as happens in those US states where this policy exists. In normal circumstances, however, they should be informed and consulted, and these unusual cases do not affect the principle that this is a sensible law. | Obtaining parental consent necessarily imposes a delay into the abortion process, which increases the likelihood of complications: generally speaking, the earlier in pregnancy an abortion takes place, the safer it is. Necessary safeguards such as judicial waivers introduce even more delays - at least 22 days in the US. For the sake of the mother’s health, it is better not to require parental consent. | |
| | | |
| This may be one of the circumstances which could be grounds for a judicial waiver - again, it should not be thought to invalidate the principle that parents should be consulted over whether underage children should have abortions. For young women nearly at the end of the 16 or 18 age barrier, the case for parental consultation is clearly less compelling; for 13-year-olds it is overwhelming. We have to draw the line somewhere, and remain sensitive to individual circumstances. | Placing an age boundary after which a woman no longer needs to obtain parental consent, say at 16 or 18, may encourage a woman just below that age to wait until her birthday before seeking a legal abortion - again, the later the abortion, the more dangerous it is. The law is not good at allowing for individual circumstances, especially when it is required to make quick decisions, so it is unlikely to mitigate the impact of new rules. | |
| | | |
| Requiring parental consent will lead to a fall in the number of abortions. In Minnesota, the number of legal teenage abortions fell by 25% when this measure was introduced; in Virginia it fell by 20%. Since abortion is - quite apart from moral questions about its permissibility - physically and psychologically traumatic for mothers, especially teenage mothers, this is a good thing. | There are various rational reasons why a child might not want to tell her parents she is pregnant, such as foreseeable parental disapproval. Requiring her to tell her parents may encourage her to run away from home. In the US, there have been numerous examples of teenagers crossing state lines to states which do not require parental consent or notification in order to get abortions - this could happen in Europe too (indeed, many Irish women already travel to Britain seeking abortions, which are banned in Eire). A teenager may also seek an unregulated ‘backstreet’ abortion or try to carry out an abortion on herself - both of which are highly dangerous. These factors account in large part for the fall in recorded teenage abortions in US states with similar laws. | |
| | | |
| When the ‘quick-fix’ of abortion as a response to teenage pregnancy is no longer so easily available to teenagers, attitudes change. Teenagers are less likely to have sex, or more likely to use contraception if they do - both of which have positive effects on health, by cutting unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. | Campaigns for sexual abstinence and contraceptive awareness are to be encouraged, but should not be an alternative to abortion provision. No sensible person would choose abortion as a good alternative to contraception, because it is more dangerous, more traumatic and harder to obtain than contraceptives - it is a necessary last resort. If sexual abstinence is not a sensible reaction to abortion being made more inaccessible, then making abortion more inaccessible is not a sensible way of increasing sexual abstinence. | |
| | | |
| In some cases of sexual abuse which have resulted in pregnancy, abusers have taken their victims to have an abortion without the knowledge of the victims’ parents. Requiring parental consent could help to uncover such cases of abuse. | If an abuser cannot take his pregnant victim to a properly run and regulated abortion clinic, he may attempt to procure a ‘backstreet’ abortion for her. This is more dangerous to the mother, and will obviously not be covered by the proposed measure. | |
| | | |
| | Motions |
| | This House would require parental consent for abortion This House would look after its children This House wishes it had listened to its mother |
| | Useful Sites |
| |
|
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar