First for In Round Impacts
To prevent reproductive deaths and save lives, we urge an affirmative ballot
Download 18.36 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Also an economic issue, women cannot work if they are forced to raise a child. A2 Displacement
- Austin just passed $23 million to offset the implications of gentrification
- Fio’s Weighing
| To prevent reproductive deaths and save lives, we urge an affirmative ballot.
Frontlines yay Anti abortion activists are not pro life but anti capitalism. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called “pro-lifers” as they are against the right to life of the actual human being, the pregnant women) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman’s womb, the fetus would still not have the rightto be inside the woman’s uterus. Under capitalism (a social system based on the principle of individual rights), abortion is an inalienable right. Anyone who advocates the outlawing of abortion (especially in the first few months of pregnancy) — is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus an enemy of capitalism. Also an economic issue, women cannot work if they are forced to raise a child. A2 Displacement: Then on displacement, you always prefer abortion access because abortion seekers don’t have the same intervening actors that people experiencing gentrification have. For example, Austin just passed $23 million to offset the implications of gentrification, however you do not see this same investment in abortion access. Don’t let them come up here and say corporate actors will pay for abortions, this is problematic because a) this forces women to get jobs with these corporate giants, which they may not have the means to do but additionally, b) forces women to reach out to their employers and ask for abortion funds, which is problematic for the privacy of women. A2: cant travel out of state Biden adiminiistration defend federal transfers Full faith and credit Fio’s Weighing Extenigency, we see these rights being taken away in the status quo, roe v wade was overturned this month and now we need to facilitate solvency for the lack of abortion access that is occuring and contributing to 22,000+ deaths a year, a 21% increase in maternal mortality, etc Then probability. Their argument assumes russian escalation occurs, however i would contend that russia is busy w the war in ukraine and their resources are streched thin, divertinbg their attention from the US. It is extremely more probable that people are given access to abortion than their extinction scenario to materialize. Third is through time frame, as soon as hsr is built we can assume abortion seekers gain access. We increase accessibility by 45%, and can see this materialize as soon as hsr is implemented. The comparative is this hypothetical nuke war that they give no time frame for Then magnitude. More than half of the US population is impacted by changes in abortion access. This access not only gives abortion resources to those seeking them, but also reproductive care for non binary and trans individuals and access to free reprductive care like contraceptives and screenings for reproductive diseases. Pre-req: Hughes finds that structural violence compounds over time leading to both the normalization and the desensitization to larger scale violence that my opponents discuss. Structural violence is the root cause of all other violence, which is why you can never solve for large scale suffering without addressing structural violence Cyclicality: Structural violence must be solved first or else impacts compound and become worse; there will always be a bigger util scenario to worry about; which means direct discussion and action SPECIFICALLY about structural violence is the only way to alter that mindset and create change. Download 18.36 Kb. Share with your friends:
|