Motion 1.

“Abortion should remain a legal option for women as a matter of bodily autonomy and
reproductive rights.”

First speaker :
Good morning to our most esteemed judges, our honorable opponent and fellow teammates, I stand
before you today to affirm the motion that abortion should remain a legal option for women as a matter
of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. I will be framing my topic which will be

Abortion is a fundamental right that safeguards a woman’s autonomy over her own body, protects her
health and well-being, and ensures reproductive freedom in a just society. To criminalize or restrict
abortion is to undermine these essential rights, placing undue burden on women and compromising
their ability to make deeply personal medical decisions. It is essential that we recognize the right of
women to make decisions regarding their own bodies, particularly when it comes to reproductive
health. Criminalizing abortion not only strips women of their autonomy but also fails to achieve its
intended purpose of protecting fetal life. In fact, it leads to more harm than good, particularly for
women who are most vulnerable.

Why is this true? At the heart of this issue is the principle of autonomy—one of the core pillars of
medical ethics. Autonomy asserts that individuals have the right to make decisions regarding their
own bodies without interference. Abortion is a deeply personal decision that affects not only the
physical body but also the emotional, social, and economic well-being of women. Restricting access
to abortion denies women the right to control their own reproductive futures, violating their autonomy
and imposing external values on deeply personal matters.

Furthermore, the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence are also at play. Beneficence
requires that we act in ways that promote the well-being of individuals, while non-maleficence—or “do
no harm”—demands that we avoid causing unnecessary suffering. Denying access to legal abortion
harms women by forcing them into potentially dangerous, life-threatening circumstances, particularly if
they turn to unsafe, illegal procedures. Legal abortions, performed by qualified medical professionals,
ensure that women can undergo the procedure safely, without undue risk to their health.

Assertion

Abortion should remain a legal option for women as a matter of bodily autonomy and reproductive
rights. The core of this argument is that women must have control over their reproductive decisions.
When we criminalize abortion, we not only undermine women’s autonomy but also create dangerous
conditions that put their health and lives at risk.

Reasoning

The key principle of autonomy in medical ethics supports the idea that individuals have the right to
make informed decisions about their own bodies. Abortion is a deeply personal choice, often made
under difficult circumstances. Denying women the legal right to make that choice is a violation of their
autonomy. Furthermore, criminalizing abortion does not eliminate it. Instead, it forces women to seek
unsafe, clandestine procedures, often with devastating consequences.

Criminalization leads to a cascade of harms, directly contradicting the principles of non-maleficence

and beneficence—the obligation to avoid harm and act in the patient’s best interest. When abortion is
illegal, women resort to unsafe methods performed by unqualified individuals, often in unsanitary
conditions. This leads to serious health complications, including infections, hemorrhaging, and even
death.

Evidence
Let’s examine the evidence. Highly restrictive abortion laws do not result in lower abortion rates. In
fact, they often lead to higher rates of unsafe abortions. According to the World Health Organization
(WHO), nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, particularly in regions with strict abortion
laws. For example, in Africa and Latin America, where abortion is illegal in most circumstances, the
abortion rate is 29 to 32 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. In contrast, in Western Europe, where
abortion is generally legal, the abortion rate is much lower—only 12 per 1,000 women. This clearly
shows that making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening. Instead, it drives women to
unsafe, clandestine procedures.

Moreover, deaths associated with abortion are significantly higher in countries with restrictive laws. In
countries with strict abortion regulations, there are 34 deaths per 100,000 childbirths due to unsafe
abortions, compared to 1 death per 100,000 in countries with less restrictive laws. This stark contrast
demonstrates that legal abortion not only reduces the number of unsafe abortions but also saves
lives.

The principle of non-maleficence, which emphasizes “do no harm,” is clearly violated when women
are forced to undergo dangerous procedures because of restrictive laws. The consequences of
unsafe abortions extend beyond immediate health risks. Long-term complications such as infertility,
chronic pain, and even maternal death are common outcomes, particularly for women in low-income
countries.

Link

Criminalizing abortion, therefore, does not protect fetal life. Instead, it jeopardizes the lives and health
of women, particularly those who are already disadvantaged. The justice principle in medical ethics
requires that healthcare be provided fairly and equitably. However, criminalizing abortion
disproportionately impacts poor and young women, who often lack access to safe healthcare. Women
from wealthier backgrounds can still access safe abortions, either by traveling to places where the
procedure is legal or by paying for private care. But for women with fewer resources, criminalization
forces them into unsafe, life-threatening situations. This is a glaring injustice.

Additional Reasoning

Public policy should focus on prevention and protection, not criminalization. Restricting abortion does
not stop it from happening; it merely makes it dangerous. If we truly want to protect life, we need
comprehensive health services that include pre-abortion counseling, access to birth control, and
sexual education. When women are given the tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies, the need for
abortion decreases. Criminalizing abortion only exacerbates the problem, while holistic policies
promote health and safety for both women and their potential children.

Let’s also consider the principle of beneficence, which urges us to act in the best interests of the
patient. Legal access to abortion, accompanied by comprehensive healthcare services, including
counseling and support, ensures that women can make informed decisions that prioritize their
well-being. When abortion is accessible, it is safer, and women are more likely to receive the care
they need.

Conclusion

In conclusion, restricting abortion does not lead to fewer abortions; it leads to more unsafe abortions,
higher maternal mortality, and greater health risks, particularly for the most vulnerable women in
society. Legal abortion protects women’s health, honors their autonomy, and promotes justice by
ensuring that all women, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have access to safe, professional
care.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we urge, you to support the motion that abortion should remain a
legal option for women as a matter of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. The ethical principles
of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice demand that we protect women’s right to
choose and ensure that abortion remains safe, legal, and accessible. Abortion should remain a legal
option for women because it respects their autonomy, promotes their well-being, avoids unnecessary
harm, and ensures justice through equitable access to reproductive healthcare. By denying women
access to legal abortion, we undermine these principles and jeopardize their health, safety, and
equality in society.

Thank you.

Now, let me address some of the opposing arguments that claim life begins at conception, that legal
abortion promotes a culture of disposability, and that increased access to birth control and education
would eliminate the need for abortion.

Firstly, the claim that life begins at conception, making abortion murder, is a matter of personal belief
rather than universal fact. While some individuals hold religious or moral convictions that human life
begins at conception, others do not share this view. The legal and medical communities recognize the
complexities of fetal development and personhood, and therefore, abortion laws in many countries
allow for the termination of pregnancies before the fetus is viable outside the womb. Legally and
medically, a woman’s right to make decisions about her pregnancy should take precedence before
viability is established. Forcing one belief system on the entire population infringes on individual
freedoms and denies women their rights.

Secondly, the argument that legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable is a gross
mischaracterization of why women seek abortions. Women do not make the decision to terminate a
pregnancy lightly. This is often a result of serious, thoughtful considerations about their health,
financial situation, or personal circumstances. Rather than promoting a culture of disposability, legal
abortion recognizes the complex realities women face and provides them with the agency to make
choices that are best for them and their families. A legal framework that supports safe and accessible
abortion upholds the value of life by protecting the health and dignity of women.

Lastly, it is true that increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education plays a
critical role in reducing unwanted pregnancies. However, even with the best preventative measures in
place, contraception is not 100% effective, and unexpected pregnancies will still occur. In cases of
contraceptive failure, health risks, or other unforeseen circumstances, abortion must remain a legal
option. Furthermore, access to these resources is uneven across the world, and where access to
contraception and education is limited, abortion remains an essential component of reproductive
healthcare. Therefore, eliminating the need for abortion entirely through preventative measures is
unrealistic, and restricting access harms those who are already vulnerable.

CONTOH IN OTHER COUNTRIES :

1. Legal Framework

Abortion in Malaysia is governed by Section 312 of the Penal Code, which states that abortion is
illegal unless it is performed by a registered medical practitioner and is necessary to save the
woman’s life or to preserve her physical or mental health. This law, while it provides some room for
abortion in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, does not allow abortion for other reasons such
as fetal abnormalities, rape, or incest, which severely limits access to the procedure.

• Example: A woman who becomes pregnant due to rape or faces a situation involving
fetal abnormalities is generally not allowed to undergo an abortion unless the pregnancy poses a
significant risk to her mental or physical health. Even in cases where a mental health risk is cited,
obtaining an abortion can involve significant legal and bureaucratic hurdles.

2. Religious Influence

Malaysia’s restrictions on abortion are influenced by the country’s predominant Islamic beliefs, as well
as other religious perspectives. In Islam, abortion is generally considered forbidden (haram) after 120
days of pregnancy when the soul is believed to be breathed into the fetus, though it can be allowed
earlier if the mother’s life is in danger or her health is at serious risk.

• Example: In some cases, religious leaders or Islamic scholars may be consulted

when a woman seeks an abortion. Religious beliefs that emphasize the sanctity of life often lead to
further restrictions or discourage healthcare providers from performing abortions even within the legal
boundaries.

3. Healthcare Access and Implementation

While abortion is technically allowed under certain conditions, the implementation in healthcare
services remains inconsistent. Many healthcare providers are reluctant to perform abortions due to
fear of legal repercussions or personal beliefs. As a result, access to safe abortion services is limited,
even when the law technically allows it.

• Example: In rural areas, women may have little to no access to clinics that provide
abortion services, and even in urban areas, medical professionals may refuse to perform abortions
due to personal beliefs. This leads some women to seek unsafe, illegal abortions, which can
endanger their health.

KLO Dİ INDONESIA :
In a country like Indonesia, where access to quality healthcare is limited and the criminal aspects of
sexual assault are high, it is crucial that we recognize the right of women to make informed choices
about their reproductive health. Criminalizing abortion in this context does not solve the problem; it
only pushes women toward dangerous, life-threatening situations.

Abortion should remain a legal option for women as a matter of bodily autonomy and reproductive
rights. In Indonesia, where access to medical healthcare systems is often inadequate, denying women
the right to a safe abortion means forcing them into the hands of unqualified practitioners, or what we
call dokter abal-abal, who offer substandard treatment. This jeopardizes not only the health of the
mother but also her life, particularly when faced with unregulated, unsafe medical practices.

Reasoning

In the Indonesian context, autonomy, the principle that individuals have the right to make decisions
about their own bodies, is of utmost importance. A woman who has suffered sexual assault, a crime
that unfortunately has a high incidence in our country, should not be forced to carry an unwanted
pregnancy to term. She must be given the option to decide what happens to her body, without the
added trauma of facing unsafe and illegal procedures.

When abortion is criminalized, it does not stop women from seeking it. Instead, they turn to unsafe
alternatives, often in unsanitary, dangerous conditions. This violates the principles of non-maleficence
and beneficence—the ethical obligations to avoid harm and promote the well-being of the patient. In
Indonesia, where healthcare systems are already struggling, pushing women to clandestine
procedures only increases the risk of death, infection, and long-term complications.

Evidence

Globally, evidence shows that criminalization does not reduce the rate of abortion. In countries with
restrictive abortion laws, such as in parts of Africa and Latin America, the rate of unsafe abortions is
much higher than in countries where abortion is legal. In Indonesia, where many women lack access
to proper medical facilities, criminalizing abortion leads to dangerous, life-threatening procedures.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal
mortality worldwide, and the situation is even more dire in countries like ours where healthcare is
limited.

Statistics show that unsafe abortions are responsible for up to 18% of maternal deaths globally, and
Indonesia is no exception. Women who seek out illegal abortions, often out of desperation, end up
facing life-threatening complications because they lack access to professional, regulated care. This is
a direct violation of the principle of non-maleficence. Instead of protecting women, restrictive laws
force them to risk their lives.

In fact, unsafe abortions are one of the principal factors affecting women’s health in developing
regions. The WHO estimates that 6.9 million women between the ages of 15 and 44 required medical
attention for complications from unsafe abortions in 2012 alone. In Indonesia, these numbers are
likely high, though underreported due to the clandestine nature of the procedures. Women who resort
to unsafe methods may suffer from infertility, chronic pain, or even death, leaving their families in
turmoil.

Link

The criminalization of abortion in Indonesia does not protect life—it only puts more lives at risk. The
justice principle in medical ethics, which calls for fair and equitable treatment, is severely
compromised when we examine who is most affected by restrictive abortion laws. Poor women and
young women in rural or economically disadvantaged areas suffer the most. Women with resources
can seek safe abortions, either abroad or through private healthcare. But the majority of women,
particularly those from less privileged backgrounds, are forced into unsafe, clandestine procedures.

In addition, the high incidence of sexual assault in Indonesia means that many women who seek
abortions are victims of rape or incest. Criminalizing abortion for these women compounds their
trauma. Instead of receiving compassion and medical care, they are forced into dangerous and illegal
procedures, violating their rights to autonomy and beneficence.

Additional Reasoning

It is important to understand that making abortion legal does not mean encouraging it. Instead, it
provides a safe option for women in crisis, ensuring that they are not pushed into the hands of
unqualified practitioners. In a country like Indonesia, where the healthcare system is under strain,
providing access to comprehensive reproductive health services, including safe and legal abortions, is
crucial for protecting women’s health and well-being.

Moreover, public policy should focus on prevention and education, not punishment. By expanding
access to birth control, sexual education, and pre-abortion counseling, we can reduce the number of
unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion in the first place. But for those women
who do need it, it must remain a safe and legal option.

In Indonesia, there are critical circumstances where abortion is necessary for medical reasons, and
these cases highlight the importance of ensuring safe and legal access to abortion. Here are the key
parameters related to abortion in such contexts:

1. Maternal Health and Life

In cases where a pregnancy endangers a woman’s health or life, abortion may be necessary to save
her. For example, conditions like pre-eclampsia, severe cardiac disease, or uncontrolled diabetes can
pose serious risks to both the mother and the fetus. Without the option of a safe, legal abortion, these
women may face life-threatening consequences. Under Indonesian law, exceptions are made for
abortion when the mother’s life is in danger, but the lack of healthcare infrastructure often limits
access to necessary treatment.

2. Fetal Anomalies

Medical professionals may detect serious fetal abnormalities during pregnancy, such as anencephaly
(a condition where the brain does not develop properly) or other severe congenital disorders that are
incompatible with life. In such cases, continuing the pregnancy could lead to the birth of a non-viable
infant, causing emotional and physical distress for the mother. Indonesian law allows for abortion in
cases of fetal abnormalities, but access remains limited due to a lack of trained healthcare providers
and facilities.

3. Inadequate Healthcare Infrastructure

In Indonesia, particularly in rural and underdeveloped areas, medical healthcare systems are often
under-resourced. Women in these areas may not have access to proper prenatal care or specialized
services that can monitor and manage high-risk pregnancies. As a result, complications that could
have been managed with early medical intervention may escalate, leading to situations where
abortion becomes necessary to save the mother’s life. However, due to the limited availability of safe
abortion services, many women are forced to resort to unsafe methods, further endangering their
health.

4. Delayed Diagnosis and Lack of Access

Even when a medical reason for abortion is present, delays in diagnosing these conditions or delayed
access to medical facilities often complicate the situation. For example, a pregnant woman with a
life-threatening condition might not receive a diagnosis early enough due to limited medical expertise
or lack of modern diagnostic tools in rural health centers. By the time the condition is identified, the
woman’s life may be in immediate danger, and safe abortion options may not be available locally.

5. Criminalization and Stigma

Despite exceptions in the law for medical reasons, the stigma surrounding abortion in Indonesia
remains strong. Women and healthcare providers may be hesitant to seek or offer abortion services
due to fear of legal repercussions or social ostracism. This stigma prevents women from accessing
necessary care, even when their health or life is at risk.

Conclusion

In Indonesia, the need for abortion due to medical reasons is a critical issue that intersects with
broader problems related to the healthcare system. For women facing life-threatening complications
or fetal anomalies, the lack of access to safe, legal abortion services exacerbates their suffering.
While the law permits abortion in certain medical cases, the infrastructure, stigma, and resource gaps
limit the practical application of these legal rights. Ensuring safe access to abortion in such medical
cases is essential for protecting women’s health and lives.
Abortion should be restricted because it involves the termination of a potential life, which is ethically
unacceptable.”

Good morning to our most esteemed judges, our honorable opponent and fellow teammates,

Today, I stand before you to defend the motion that abortion should be restricted because it involves
the termination of a potential life, which is ethically unacceptable. This is not just a medical issue—it is
a profound ethical and moral dilemma. Every abortion is the termination of a potential human life, and
as such, it raises questions about the value we place on life itself. Abortion cannot be reduced to a
matter of personal choice, and we must carefully consider the consequences, not only for the
individual but for society as a whole, raises critical moral, ethical, and societal issues, and today we
present the reasons why we firmly believe that abortion is fundamentally wrong and should be
prohibited by law.”

Moreover, abortion is a difficult procedure to undergo, especially when the general public is not fully
aware of its dangers. For example, in countries that implement policies allowing abortion, both the
individual and the child may face life-threatening situations. When such practices are legalized, new
ways of thinking can emerge that could lead to moral decay. People may feel freer to engage in
casual sex, resulting in unplanned pregnancies and ultimately abortion. This is not just an individual
issue but one that can undermine our social fabric.

If abortion were to be banned, at least individuals would be more inclined to seek appropriate and
safe medical assistance rather than taking shortcuts that could lead to death. By increasing access to
sexual education and contraception, we not only protect unborn lives but also encourage society to
take more responsibility for their actions.

Let us begin with the most foundational argument: the question of when life begins. Scientific
evidence supports that life begins at the moment of conception. The embryo, even in its earliest
stages, carries its own distinct human DNA, and from that point on, it is a separate human life. By
terminating this life, abortion equates to the intentional destruction of a human being—essentially,
murder. The legal and moral framework of our societies is built on the protection of human life. If we
believe in the sanctity of life, we must uphold this principle consistently, from conception onward.”

This is not a matter of opinion; it is a biological fact. By terminating this process, we are effectively
ending a human life. To allow abortion is to say that some lives are disposable, that certain human
beings do not have the same rights as others. This reasoning leads us to question the value we place
on life.

Further, legalizing abortion promotes a culture in which life is seen as negotiable. When we allow
abortion, we are saying that life is only valuable when it is convenient, wanted, or planned. This
dangerous mindset can spread throughout society, devaluing human life at all stages.“By legalizing
abortion, we send a disturbing message to society: that human life is disposable. It establishes a
precedent that undermines the inherent value of human beings and promotes the idea that
inconvenient lives can be easily eliminated. The legal system should reflect the importance of life and
respect for human dignity. If we continue to allow abortion, it desensitizes society to violence and
dehumanizes individuals, especially the most vulnerable—the unborn, who cannot speak for
themselves. We risk creating a world where human life is treated as a commodity, to be kept or
discarded depending on the circumstances
In Indonesia, the consequences of legalizing abortion would be particularly harmful. As I mentioned
earlier, family values and religious teachings are at the core of our culture. These values teach us to
respect life, to care for others, and to take responsibility for our actions. Legalizing abortion would
send the message that we can avoid responsibility by terminating a pregnancy, rather than addressing
the issues that led to the unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

We see examples of this in countries where abortion is freely available—where the decision to
terminate a pregnancy is often made without serious moral reflection. In many cases, abortions occur
not out of medical necessity but because the pregnancy is seen as inconvenient. This mindset is one
that we cannot afford to adopt, especially in a society like Indonesia, where family values and the
sanctity of life are core to our cultural and religious traditions. It establishes a precedent that
undermines the inherent value of human beings and promotes the idea that inconvenient lives can be
easily eliminated. The legal system should reflect the importance of life and respect for human dignity.
If we continue to allow abortion, it desensitizes society to violence and dehumanizes individuals,
especially the most vulnerable—the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves.

We can see clear evidence of the ethical and social consequences of legal abortion from a global
perspective. Take, for example, the situation in the United States, where abortion has been legal for
decades. Studies have shown that in some areas, abortion rates are alarmingly high, particularly
among disadvantaged populations. This has contributed to the perception that life, especially the lives
of the unborn, is something that can be easily discarded. Planned Parenthood, one of the largest
providers of abortion services in the United States, has faced criticism for treating abortion as a
routine medical procedure rather than the serious moral issue it is.

On the other hand, in countries where abortion is more restricted, there is often a greater emphasis on
family planning, education, and support for women. For instance, in Ireland, before abortion was
legalized, the country invested heavily in maternal healthcare and support services for women facing
unplanned pregnancies. This focus on life-affirming solutions has had a positive impact on families
and communities. While Ireland eventually legalized abortion, many still argue that the emphasis on
protecting life, even in difficult circumstances, has helped preserve the country’s strong sense of
moral responsibility.

In Indonesia, where traditional family values and religious beliefs are deeply rooted, we must be
cautious about embracing a system that devalues life. Abortion contradicts the values that many
Indonesian families hold dear—values that have been passed down through generations. Islam,
Christianity, and other religious traditions in Indonesia all emphasize the sanctity of life, and many
Indonesians believe that life is a gift from God. Allowing abortion would erode these beliefs and lead
to a decline in the moral standards that have held Indonesian families together.

3. Main Argument 2: Legal abortion promotes a culture of disposability (2 minutes)

Moreover, the impact on young people and future generations cannot be ignored. If we allow abortion,
we risk teaching young Indonesians that life is disposable and that difficult decisions can be solved
through termination rather than responsibility. This undermines the moral fabric of our society and
could lead to a future in which the value of life is diminished.

4. Main Argument 3: Abortion can be reduced through better education, access to contraception, and
healthcare (2 minutes)
“The third point I would like to bring forward is that abortion is not the only solution to unplanned or
unwanted pregnancies. In fact, we can address this issue by promoting increased access to birth
control, health insurance, and comprehensive sexual education. These alternatives are both practical
and morally sound. If individuals are educated about responsible sexual behavior and have access to
effective contraception, the rate of unintended pregnancies would naturally decline. Moreover, by
providing better healthcare, we can offer more supportive alternatives to women, such as adoption or
support services that make keeping the child a viable option. This approach is preventive, proactive,
and preserves life.”

5. Conclusion (1 minute)
“In conclusion, we on the proposition believe that abortion should not be legal for three compelling
reasons: first, because life begins at conception and abortion is therefore murder; second, because
legalizing abortion fosters a culture of disposability and dehumanization; and third, because we have
better, life-preserving alternatives through education, contraception, and healthcare. The value of life
is paramount, and it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society, including the unborn.
Thank you.”

Speech for First Speaker: Motion: “Abortion should be restricted because it involves the termination of
a potential life, which is ethically unacceptable.”

Ladies and gentlemen, honorable adjudicators, and esteemed audience,

Assertion

The assertion at the heart of today’s motion is simple: life begins at conception, and thus, abortion is
ethically unacceptable because it terminates a potential life. From the moment of conception, a new
and unique human being begins to develop. To terminate that life, even in its earliest stages, is to end
the process of human development, and this makes abortion akin to murder. The moral
consequences of abortion cannot be ignored. By restricting abortion, we acknowledge the inherent
value of human life and reinforce the idea that life—no matter how early in its development—deserves
protection.

Reasoning

The reasoning behind this assertion is based on both scientific and moral principles. Scientifically, we
know that life begins at conception. At that moment, a unique human DNA sequence is formed,
setting the foundation for an individual’s development.

Evidence

Link to Medical Ethics

Now, let us examine the issue of abortion through the lens of medical ethics. The four pillars of
medical ethics—autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice—offer a framework for
understanding why abortion should be restricted.

1. Autonomy: While a woman’s autonomy over her body is important, it does not grant
her the right to end a potential life. Autonomy is not an unlimited right, especially when it involves
harm to another. In the case of abortion, there are two lives involved—the mother’s and the unborn
child’s. The rights of the unborn must also be considered.
2. Non-maleficence: This principle, often stated as “do no harm,” is central to medical
practice. Abortion, by its very nature, harms the fetus by ending its life. Even if we focus on the
immediate needs of the mother, we cannot ignore the irreversible harm done to the unborn child. In
fact, abortion often harms women as well, both physically and emotionally. Many women who undergo
abortions experience long-term psychological distress, including feelings of guilt and regret.
3. Beneficence: Beneficence requires that we act in the best interest of our patients. In
the case of abortion, this means finding solutions that protect both the mother and the unborn child.
Rather than allowing abortion, we should focus on providing support and resources for women facing
unplanned pregnancies. These are not “unwanted potential lives”—these are children who need
special care, and we as a society have a duty to provide that care.
 4. Justice: The principle of justice demands that we protect the most vulnerable
members of society. There is no one more vulnerable than an unborn child. By restricting abortion, we
ensure that the rights of the unborn are protected and that all human beings, regardless of their stage
of development, are treated with dignity and respect.

Additional Considerations: Indonesian Cultural and Religious Values

Conclusion

In conclusion, abortion should be restricted because it involves the termination of a potential life,
which is ethically and morally unacceptable. From the moment of conception, a unique human life
begins, and it is our duty to protect that life. By restricting abortion, we reinforce the message that life
is valuable, that every human being—born or unborn—deserves protection. Legal abortion promotes
a culture in which life is disposable, which contradicts the ethical principles of non-maleficence,
beneficence, and justice.

Instead of allowing abortion, we must focus on prevention. By increasing access to contraception,

healthcare, and education, we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and make abortion
unnecessary. This approach aligns with our cultural and religious traditions and ensures that we
protect the sanctity of life while addressing the root causes of unplanned pregnancies. Let us uphold
our responsibility to care for life, both born and unborn, and work towards a future where abortion is
not needed.

Thank you.

Conclusion

In conclusion, abortion should be restricted because it involves the termination of a potential life,
which is ethically and morally unacceptable. From the moment of conception, a unique human life
begins, and it is our duty to protect that life. By restricting abortion, we reinforce the message that life
is valuable, that every human being—born or unborn—deserves protection. Legal abortion promotes
a culture in which life is disposable, which contradicts the ethical principles of non-maleficence,
beneficence, and justice.

Instead of allowing abortion, we must focus on prevention. By increasing access to contraception,

healthcare, and education, we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and make abortion
unnecessary. This approach aligns with our cultural and religious traditions and ensures that we
protect the sanctity of life while addressing the root causes of unplanned pregnancies. Let us uphold
our responsibility to care for life, both born and unborn, and work towards a future where abortion is
not needed.
Speech for the Motion: “In Favor of Legalizing Voluntary Euthanasia”

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and my fellow speakers,

Today, I stand before you in support of the motion that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized to
allow individuals with terminal illnesses to die with dignity and reduce unnecessary suffering. The
conversation surrounding euthanasia is often charged with emotion, yet at its core, it is a matter of
compassion, respect for individual autonomy, and the ethical obligations of the medical profession.

The Case for Voluntary Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia, as defined, is the act of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve them of
suffering, with their consent. This concept is rooted in the understanding that every individual has the
right to make decisions about their own body and life, particularly when faced with insurmountable
pain and a terminal diagnosis. Allowing voluntary euthanasia empowers patients to choose a dignified
exit rather than endure prolonged suffering, which can often accompany terminal illnesses.

Medical Ethics and Euthanasia

To better understand this issue, we can look at the four fundamental principles of medical ethics:
autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

1. Autonomy: This principle emphasizes the right of patients to make informed decisions
about their own healthcare. Patients suffering from terminal illnesses often face unbearable pain and
a loss of quality of life. They should have the autonomy to choose euthanasia if they believe that is in
their best interest. For instance, consider the case of a patient with advanced cancer who experiences
excruciating pain and knows that their condition is only going to worsen. Granting them the right to
choose euthanasia respects their autonomy.
2. Beneficence: This principle obligates healthcare professionals to act in the best
interests of the patient. In many cases, prolonging life through aggressive treatment can lead to
further suffering without a chance of recovery. Legalizing euthanasia can be seen as an act of
beneficence, as it offers relief from intractable suffering. For example, in countries like the
Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, patients report feeling empowered and relieved when given
this option, knowing they can choose when to end their suffering.
3. Non-maleficence: This principle is about “do no harm.” By refusing to consider
euthanasia, we may inadvertently cause more harm by forcing patients to endure unbearable pain.
This is especially true when pain management is inadequate. Consider patients with conditions such
as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), who may face a slow, painful decline. In such cases, allowing
euthanasia can prevent further harm caused by prolonged suffering.
4. Justice: This principle demands fairness in healthcare. Denying individuals the choice
of euthanasia can perpetuate inequality, particularly for those with terminal conditions who may not
have access to adequate palliative care. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia can ensure that all
individuals have equal access to options that align with their values and beliefs about dying.

Examples of Legal Frameworks

Countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada have successfully implemented laws governing
euthanasia, which provide robust safeguards. For instance, in the Netherlands, patients must undergo
a thorough assessment process, including consultations with multiple healthcare professionals to
confirm their eligibility. These frameworks demonstrate that voluntary euthanasia can be regulated
effectively, ensuring that it is performed ethically and responsibly.

In the United States, states like Oregon have enacted the Death with Dignity Act, allowing terminally ill
patients to request lethal medication under specific circumstances. These legislative measures
illustrate a growing recognition of the importance of individual choice in end-of-life care.

Addressing Concerns
I recognize that there are concerns surrounding the potential for abuse in legalizing euthanasia.
However, with stringent regulations and oversight, these fears can be mitigated. The key lies in
ensuring informed consent and thorough evaluation processes. Safeguards must be in place to
protect vulnerable populations, but we should not allow these concerns to overshadow the
fundamental rights of individuals facing unimaginable suffering.

Conclusion

In conclusion, legalizing voluntary euthanasia is not about promoting death; rather, it is about honoring
the dignity and autonomy of individuals facing terminal illnesses. It is about offering a compassionate
choice to those who suffer, allowing them to make the decision that best reflects their values and
desires. By embracing this practice, we uphold the four principles of medical ethics: respecting
autonomy, acting in the best interests of patients, preventing harm, and ensuring justice.

Let us not deny individuals the right to choose a dignified end to their suffering. Let us support the
motion to legalize voluntary euthanasia and provide an option that embodies compassion, respect,
and ethical integrity.

Thank you.

To frame our discussion, I would like to invoke the four fundamental principles of medical ethics:
autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. These principles serve as the foundation for
ethical decision-making in healthcare and are particularly relevant to our discourse on euthanasia.

Autonomy is the cornerstone of personal freedom. Every individual has the right to make decisions
about their own body and life, including the decision to end it when faced with terminal illness. When a
person is diagnosed with a terminal condition, they often confront unimaginable suffering and a loss of
autonomy as their health deteriorates. Legalizing euthanasia empowers these individuals to reclaim
control over their lives, allowing them to choose a dignified exit rather than endure relentless pain. For
example, a patient with advanced cancer may experience excruciating pain and debilitating side
effects from treatment, making the quality of life unbearable. By allowing voluntary euthanasia, we
honor their right to self-determination.

Next, we consider beneficence—the ethical obligation to act in the best interest of the patient.
Euthanasia provides a compassionate option for those who are suffering beyond what is acceptable.
In cases where medical interventions offer no hope for recovery, the best course of action may be to
allow individuals to choose death over prolonged agony. This is not an act of abandonment; rather, it
is a recognition that sometimes the kindest option is to relieve suffering.

Conversely, we have non-maleficence, the principle of “do no harm.” By denying individuals the option
of euthanasia, we may inadvertently prolong suffering and subject them to unnecessary pain. A
person with a terminal illness may endure a drawn-out dying process filled with physical and
emotional distress. The suffering caused by such scenarios raises critical questions about our
commitment to alleviating pain and respecting individual choices. Euthanasia offers a solution to this
dilemma, allowing individuals to die peacefully and without prolonged suffering.

Finally, we arrive at justice, which speaks to fairness in healthcare. The resources spent on extending
the lives of individuals with no chance of recovery could be redirected to treat patients who have a
potential for recovery. According to estimates from healthcare professionals, prolonging the life of a
terminally ill patient can be financially burdensome for families and healthcare systems alike.
Legalizing euthanasia would not only alleviate the financial strain on families but also free up
resources for those who could benefit from ongoing medical treatment.

Moreover, we must acknowledge the emotional toll on families. Witnessing a loved one suffer through
a painful and protracted death is a heavy burden. Legalizing voluntary euthanasia would spare
families the pain of watching their loved ones endure unnecessary suffering. Instead, families could
focus on cherishing their time together without the cloud of inevitable suffering overshadowing their
final moments.

As a society, we often allow for humane treatment of animals that suffer. We provide the option of
euthanasia for pets as an act of kindness when they are in pain. Should we not extend the same
compassion to our fellow human beings? If society can permit the humane ending of an animal’s life,
why should we deny that choice to individuals who are suffering intolerably?

To support my argument, I would like to reference the nuclear incident in Tokaimura, Japan, in
1999. In this tragic event, workers were exposed to lethal doses of radiation due to a criticality
accident. The individuals affected faced a long and painful decline, suffering from acute radiation
syndrome, which resulted in agonizing deaths. These individuals experienced prolonged suffering,
much like terminally ill patients. Had there been provisions for voluntary euthanasia, they might have
been afforded the dignity and relief from suffering that they deserved. along with a third worker who
also suffered exposure, received emergency treatment. However, the damage was so extensive that
their conditions worsened. Ouchi suffered from acute radiation syndrome, experiencing severe pain,
organ failure, and a multitude of complications.

Hisashi Ouchi eventually succumbed to his injuries after 83 days in the hospital. The
treatment process was grueling, both for him and his family. It involved a prolonged struggle against
immense pain, suffering, and a very public deterioration of his health. Shinohara also died due to
complications from radiation exposure, although he lived longer than Ouchi. The Tokaimura incident
serves as a poignant example of the complexities surrounding suffering, autonomy, and the emotional
toll on families. By legalizing voluntary euthanasia, we acknowledge the right of individuals to choose
how they die, particularly in situations of unmanageable pain and terminal illness. It allows families to
advocate for their loved ones’ dignity, helping to alleviate the emotional burden of helplessness in the
face of suffering. The option of euthanasia, in such harrowing cases, becomes not just a matter of
choice but an act of compassion and humanity.

In conclusion, the case for legalizing voluntary euthanasia is anchored in the fundamental principles of
medical ethics. It respects individual autonomy, promotes beneficence, avoids the harm of
unnecessary suffering, and addresses issues of justice within our healthcare system. Let us embrace
humanity in our choices and recognize that allowing individuals with terminal illnesses to choose
euthanasia is an expression of compassion and dignity.

I urge you to support the motion for the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, allowing individuals the
right to die with dignity and relieve them of unnecessary suffering. Thank you.

POSSIBLE POI’s

1. Slippery Slope: “If we allow euthanasia for terminally ill patients, how can we stop it
from being applied to those with less serious conditions or mental health issues?”

We can create strict laws to ensure euthanasia is only for terminally ill patients in unbearable pain,
with multiple doctors confirming the need.”

4. Risk of Coercion: “Could vulnerable patients feel pressured to choose euthanasia to

avoid being a burden on their families?”
Independent evaluations can help ensure that patients are making voluntary and informed decisions,
free from family or financial pressure.”

5. Alternatives: “Instead of legalizing euthanasia, shouldn’t we improve hospice and

palliative care to help patients manage their pain?”
Improving hospice care is essential, and euthanasia offers patients more choices. It doesn’t replace
palliative care; it complements it.”
 6. Temporary Decisions: “How can we be sure patients are making informed choices?
Many may decide to end their lives in moments of despair.”
Thorough mental health assessments can ensure patients are making informed choices and not
acting on temporary feelings of despair.”

7. Cultural Beliefs: “How do you respect the beliefs of those who think euthanasia is
wrong? What about cultural and religious views on this issue?”
Legalizing euthanasia allows choice without forcing anyone to use it. People can still refuse based on
their beliefs.

8. Legal Issues: “What legal protections will prevent misuse of euthanasia laws? How do
we ensure fairness in its application?”
Strict legal criteria can prevent misuse of euthanasia, with oversight to ensure fairness and
responsibility in its application.

9. Long-term Impact: “What message does legalizing euthanasia send about the value
of life? Could it have negative effects on society’s view of suffering?”
Legalizing euthanasia shows compassion for those suffering, emphasizing individual choice and
respect for their wishes.”

10. Family Dynamics: “How will euthanasia affect families? Decisions about ending a life
could create lasting divisions and emotional pain.”
Euthanasia can encourage open conversations about end-of-life wishes, allowing families to spend
time together without prolonged suffering.”

Speech for the First Speaker Against the Motion: “Euthanasia should remain illegal as it undermines
the sanctity of life and can lead to potential abuses or coercion.”

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and my worthy opponents,

Today, we address a deeply significant issue: the legality of euthanasia. I stand before you firmly
against the motion that advocates for its legalization, asserting that euthanasia should remain illegal
as it undermines the sanctity of life and poses serious risks of potential abuses and coercion.

To begin with, the sanctity of life is a cornerstone of our moral and ethical framework. Allowing
euthanasia sends a message that some lives, particularly those of the disabled or terminally ill, are
less valuable than others. This perspective is dangerous; it suggests that being sick or disabled
renders life unworthy of living. The implications of this viewpoint are profound and can have
far-reaching consequences, risking the dignity and humanity of those who are most vulnerable.

Consider the perspective of people with disabilities. Often, able-bodied individuals view life with a
disability as inherently tragic, filled with suffering and frustration. This narrow viewpoint fails to
recognize that many individuals with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. They argue for equal rights and
opportunities, emphasizing that quality of life should not be assessed by others but by individuals
themselves, particularly when they are provided with appropriate support. Many disabled individuals
find joy in their lives and do not agree with the notion that their existence should be ended
prematurely.

Moreover, the fear of euthanasia rests on the understanding that it can devalue the lives of the
disabled. The slippery slope is not merely hypothetical; history has shown us that societies which
accept euthanasia often move toward devaluing the lives of those deemed unproductive or
burdensome. Legalizing euthanasia may reinforce harmful stereotypes about disability and suffering,
promoting the idea that some lives are not worth living.

We must also consider the serious implications for patients’ best interests. There are numerous cases
where a patient’s request for euthanasia may stem from misunderstandings or misdiagnoses. A
patient might not be terminally ill, or their suffering could be alleviated with proper medical care. Many
patients experience transient feelings of hopelessness, often linked to depression or anxiety, that
might distort their perspective on their quality of life. Thus, a well-designed euthanasia system must
include thorough assessments to ensure that decisions are made based on sound judgments and not
on fleeting emotions.

Additionally, we cannot ignore the rights of others in this equation. Euthanasia does not only affect the
individual who wishes to die; it has profound implications for family members, healthcare providers,
and society as a whole. Family and friends may face emotional turmoil and moral dilemmas when a
loved one considers euthanasia. Furthermore, the introduction of euthanasia could inadvertently
pressure vulnerable individuals into making life-ending decisions, fearing they are a burden on their
families or the healthcare system.

Proper palliative care serves as a humane alternative to euthanasia. It offers a compassionate

approach that emphasizes the physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of dying patients.
Competent palliative care has the potential to relieve suffering, enhance quality of life, and
significantly reduce the desire for euthanasia. As Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern
hospice movement, stated, “You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your
life.”

The arguments against the legalization of euthanasia often center around the potential for abuse and
the ethical implications of granting too much power to medical professionals. Critics argue that
allowing doctors to assist in ending a patient’s life effectively places them in a god-like position, where
their decisions could unduly influence the timing of death. While it is true that doctors frequently make
choices that impact the length of life, such as deciding on treatment options or end-of-life care, the act
of euthanasia represents a distinct and irreversible decision to shorten life. It is essential that these
choices be made within a regulated framework with proper safeguards to ensure ethical practice.

However, historical instances suggest that even with regulations in place, there is a risk of doctors
acting improperly. For example, reports have shown that Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders are often
placed on elderly patients without proper consultation, indicating a pattern of decision-making that
may overlook the wishes of the patient and their families. This raises concerns about the potential for
biases in the medical community regarding who is deemed worthy of life-saving interventions.

Additionally, the fear of pressure on vulnerable populations is a significant concern. Vulnerable

individuals, such as those suffering from terminal illnesses or disabilities, may feel compelled to
request euthanasia due to a sense of being a burden to their loved ones or society. Testimonies from
individuals, such as those presented to the Canadian Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted
Suicide, highlight how isolation and a lack of support can lead to premature decisions regarding
death. The emotional and psychological toll of feeling like a burden can further complicate their ability
to make informed and voluntary choices about euthanasia.

Family dynamics can also play a critical role, as subtle pressures from relatives may influence a sick
person’s decision to seek euthanasia. The fear that loved ones may regard them as a burden can
lead to feelings of guilt or hopelessness, prompting some individuals to consider euthanasia as a
solution rather than seeking support and companionship.

Financial considerations further complicate the debate. As medical care can become increasingly
expensive in the final months of life, the availability of euthanasia might be seen as a cost-effective
alternative. The low cost of the medication required for euthanasia compared to ongoing medical
treatments could inadvertently create a scenario where individuals feel financial pressure to choose
euthanasia, raising ethical concerns about the motivations behind such decisions.

In light of these concerns, it becomes imperative to address how the potential for abuse, undue
pressure, and financial motivations may lead to situations where euthanasia could be misapplied or
improperly requested, warranting a careful reconsideration of its legalization.

Palliative care also focuses on the needs of the patient’s family, providing them with support and the
opportunity to say goodbye in a meaningful way. However, while palliative care is essential, we must
acknowledge that it can sometimes be inadequate. For instance, some patients may suffer from pain
that is not adequately managed despite the best efforts of healthcare providers. Others may fear
losing their dignity and independence due to dependency on caregivers.

Additionally, concerns exist that legalizing euthanasia could reduce the availability of palliative care. If
euthanasia is viewed as a quick and cost-effective solution to the complexities of dying, resources
may be diverted from developing robust palliative care systems, leaving vulnerable patients with fewer
options for support.

In conclusion, the arguments against euthanasia are robust and multifaceted. It undermines the
sanctity of life, places vulnerable individuals at risk, and diverts focus from improving palliative care.
Euthanasia could reinforce societal views that devalue the lives of those who are disabled or
terminally ill, while proper support and care should be prioritized. Instead of legalizing euthanasia, we
should advocate for enhanced palliative care, ensuring that every individual is treated with dignity and
respect until the very end.
 Motion: “Human cloning should be pursued for medical research purposes, such as creating
genetically identical organs for transplantation.”

Speech for the First Speaker in Favor of the Motion: “Human cloning should be pursued for medical
research purposes, such as creating genetically identical organs for transplantation.”

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

When news broke in 1997 that Ian Wilmut and his team successfully cloned an adult sheep named
Dolly, it caused a wave of fear across the globe. The fear was not only amongst the public but also
within the scientific community. Countries like Germany, Denmark, and Spain enacted laws to ban
human cloning, while others, like Norway and Sweden, implicitly banned it. However, today, we must
challenge these fears and recognize the immense potential human cloning holds, particularly in the
realm of medical research, where it could save countless lives and alleviate human suffering.

Let’s be clear, we are discussing therapeutic cloning—cloning for medical purposes, such as creating
genetically identical organs for transplantation. This approach holds tremendous promise for
addressing some of the most pressing challenges in medicine, and I will now argue why it is crucial
that we pursue this technology.

I.
To frame this argument, let us consider the four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence,
non-maleficence, and justice.

1. Autonomy refers to respecting an individual’s right to make their own decisions

regarding their health. Just as patients have the right to choose treatments like chemotherapy or
organ transplants, they should have the right to choose the best possible medical interventions,
including those derived from cloning technology. Imagine someone suffering from liver failure: should
they not have the autonomy to opt for a genetically identical liver, created through cloning, that
minimizes the risk of organ rejection? This is a personal choice that should not be denied.
2. Beneficence refers to the moral obligation to act for the benefit of others. Therapeutic
cloning aligns with this principle because it offers the potential to save lives and improve health
outcomes. By creating organs that are perfect genetic matches for patients, we could dramatically
reduce the need for immunosuppressive drugs, improve the success rates of organ transplants, and
extend the lives of millions of people suffering from organ failure. According to research from the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), therapeutic cloning could effectively eliminate transplant rejection
and shorten waiting lists for organs.
3. Non-maleficence, the duty to do no harm, also supports human cloning for medical
research. Some may argue that cloning could lead to unforeseen harms, but the opposite is true when
regulated properly. If we do not pursue cloning for organ transplantation, we are leaving patients to
face unnecessary suffering—organ shortages, failed transplants, and long-term dependence on risky
medications. Cloning, in this case, can prevent harm by offering safe, genetically compatible
solutions.
4. Justice demands that we provide fair access to medical advancements. Right now,
the shortage of organ donors disproportionately affects marginalized groups. Pursuing cloning would
create a more equitable system where everyone has access to lifesaving transplants without waiting
years for a donor organ. Justice, in this context, is ensuring that medical technology is available to all
who need it.

II. Scientific Freedom and Personal Liberty

At the core of this debate is the principle of scientific freedom. In a world where scientific discovery
drives the solution to humanity’s most pressing health challenges, it is crucial that we do not suppress
research that could alleviate suffering. Cloning technology represents one of the most promising
medical breakthroughs of our time. To ban it outright would be to deny humanity the opportunity to
revolutionize the way we treat diseases.
Moreover, personal liberty must be respected. Individuals should have the right to make personal
reproductive choices, and this extends to medical choices regarding life-saving treatments. Patients
who face life-threatening diseases should be given the option to benefit from cloned organs,
especially when these organs eliminate the risk of rejection and prolong life.

III. Achieving Immortality and Preventing Genetic Diseases

Cloning also offers the possibility of biological immortality, not by extending human life indefinitely, but
by extending one’s biological presence through cloned tissues or organs. Imagine a world where you
no longer have to fear organ failure because a backup organ—genetically identical to yours—could be
grown whenever needed. This represents a revolutionary change in how we view life expectancy and
health.

Additionally, cloning presents the potential for eugenic selection to prevent genetic diseases. By
cloning healthy cells and tissues, we could eliminate hereditary illnesses like cystic fibrosis or sickle
cell anemia. This would not only reduce suffering for individuals but also reduce the burden on
healthcare systems.

IV. Addressing Infertility and Emotional Healing

Cloning also serves as a viable solution for couples who struggle with infertility. For those unable to
conceive naturally, cloning offers the possibility of having children who are genetically related to them.
It is a beacon of hope for families longing to experience parenthood.

Beyond this, cloning could provide emotional relief for families who have lost loved ones. While
cloning would not replace the emotional connection with a deceased family member, it could offer a
form of healing. Bringing a genetically related child into the world could help families find closure after
experiencing loss.

V. Cloning as Biological “Insurance” and Scientific Progress

Cloning could serve as a form of biological insurance. By freezing a cloned embryo, we can ensure a
genetic backup is available in case something happens to the original person. This is not just about
organ transplants, but also about safeguarding against unforeseen medical challenges.

Moreover, cloning can advance our understanding of stem cell research, aging, and cancer
development. Researchers can use cloned cells to investigate how diseases develop and test new
treatments. The work published in Cell Stem Cell shows how induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)
could one day generate tissues that genetically match donors. Therapeutic cloning builds on this
progress, leading us closer to personalized medicine.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, pursuing human cloning for medical research purposes is not something to fear, but
something to embrace. Through the lens of medical ethics, scientific freedom, and personal
autonomy, cloning offers life-saving possibilities for organ transplantation, infertility treatment, and the
prevention of genetic diseases. It is a powerful tool that, when regulated ethically, has the potential to
revolutionize medicine and improve the lives of millions.

Let us move forward, not in fear, but in hope—hope for a future where medical research opens doors
to new treatments and where no life is lost for lack of an organ.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

Today we confront a defining question of our time: should we pursue human DNA cloning for medical
research purposes? I argue that the answer must be yes, for cloning holds the promise to transform
medicine and alleviate human suffering on an unimaginable scale. In this speech, we would like to
prove how cloning aligns with key medical ethics and address pressing medical needs, all while
asking you to reflect on the human cost of inaction.

Let’s begin by defining what human DNA cloning entails. In this context, we are talking specifically
about therapeutic cloning—not creating a human being, but cloning cells, tissues, or even organs that
are genetically identical to a patient in need. Such advancements can revolutionize treatments for
conditions that today claim the lives of millions.

Using the AREL method—assertion, reasoning, evidence, and link—I will demonstrate why we must
pursue cloning research. I’ll also highlight the four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence,
non-maleficence, and justice.

A - Assertion

Human DNA cloning for medical research is both a scientific necessity and an ethical imperative. It
offers solutions to pressing medical challenges such as organ shortages, genetic diseases, and
infertility. Moreover, therapeutic cloning aligns with the highest ethical standards in medicine, aiming
to relieve suffering while respecting individual rights.

R - Reasoning

Imagine the despair of a patient on a transplant list, awaiting a kidney, a liver, or a heart—hoping to
live long enough to receive the gift of life. Cloning technology could produce these organs, genetically
identical to the patient, eliminating rejection risks. Furthermore, parents who carry genetic diseases
live in fear of passing these illnesses to their children. With therapeutic cloning, these couples could
have healthy children free of hereditary diseases.

Now, I’d like to guide you through how human DNA cloning fits within the four pillars of medical ethics:

1. Autonomy

Autonomy emphasizes the right of individuals to make informed choices about their medical care.
Human DNA cloning expands these choices. Imagine a parent, desperate to save their child suffering
from leukemia, who finds that the only viable solution is a bone marrow transplant. With cloning, that
child’s perfectly matched tissue could be created in the lab—no need to wait for a donor.
Now, ask yourself: Shouldn’t parents have the right to save their child with the best technology
available? Cloning gives them that power, offering life-saving options where none existed before.

2. Beneficence

Beneficence requires us to act in the best interests of the patient and to do good. Human cloning
offers unparalleled opportunities for medical progress. Consider the fact that over 100,000 people are
currently on organ transplant waiting lists in the United States alone, and thousands die each year
because they never receive the organ they need (sumber: Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network).

The pioneering work of Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering how to create
induced pluripotent stem cells, opened the door for cloning to be used to generate tissue and organs
for transplantation (sumber: NobelPrize.org). With such advancements, cloning can reduce the
burden of waiting lists and save countless lives. This technology could bring hope to millions of
families. Should we deny them that hope?

3. Non-Maleficence

The principle of non-maleficence or “do no harm” requires us to minimize risks. Critics argue that
cloning might lead to ethical complications, but therapeutic cloning—which produces cells or tissues,
not full human beings—poses no such risk.
In fact, failing to pursue cloning could cause harm by denying patients life-saving treatments. For
instance, millions of people with diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s, and spinal cord injuries stand to
benefit from cloning research that could generate tissues to replace damaged organs or cells
(sumber: National Institutes of Health).
So, I ask you: Should we allow these patients to continue suffering when the technology to heal them
is within reach? Cloning is the least harmful solution in this scenario—it’s not about creating life, but
saving lives.

4. Justice

Justice demands that the benefits of medical advances be shared fairly across society. Organ
shortages and the cost of current treatments often affect the most vulnerable. Therapeutic cloning can
democratize access to healthcare by providing universally available, genetically tailored solutions.

For instance, sickle cell anemia, a genetic disorder that disproportionately affects people of African
descent, could potentially be cured through therapeutic cloning (sumber: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention). Should we not strive to eliminate this inherited suffering, ensuring justice for all
families, regardless of their genetic lottery?
Consider the parents of a child born with this disease—would you deny them the chance to give their
child a healthy life? Justice demands that we offer this solution to all.

E - Evidence

Let’s ground these arguments in reality. First, Dolly the sheep, cloned in 1996, proved that somatic
cell nuclear transfer is viable (sumber: Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh). Since then, cloning
research has progressed rapidly. In 2013, scientists successfully cloned human embryonic stem cells,
opening the door for regenerative medicine (sumber: Oregon Health & Science University). These
advances show that cloning is not a far-off dream—it is here, now, and ready to be harnessed for
medical good.

In South Korea, researchers are already working on cloning organs for transplantation, specifically
targeting diabetes and heart disease, which affect millions worldwide. These developments highlight
the immense potential of cloning to provide safe, personalized medicine without the risks of organ
rejection.

L - Link

Now, let’s link all of this back to the motion. Pursuing human DNA cloning for medical research is not
only feasible but necessary. It honors the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and
justice, providing ethical solutions to global health crises. The technology to create tailored
treatments, organs, and tissues can give millions of patients a chance at life they might not otherwise
have.

Emotional Appeal

As I conclude, I want to ask you to reflect deeply: What would you do if it were your child, your parent,
your sibling waiting for an organ that might never come? Would you hesitate to support the research
that could save them? Imagine the heartache of knowing that life-saving technology exists, but we
refuse to use it.

The human cost of delaying this research is too high. Cloning for medical research is a moral duty—a
duty to provide life-saving treatments to those in need, to ease suffering, and to give families hope.

In conclusion, we must pursue human DNA cloning for medical research. To do otherwise would be to
turn our backs on the suffering that we have the power to alleviate.
Human DNA Cloning Should Not Be Pursued for Medical Research Purposes

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

The possibility of human DNA cloning, once confined to science fiction, has now entered the realm of
possibility. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1996, the debate around the cloning of
human beings has been intensifying. Proponents claim that human cloning could revolutionize
medical research, offering potential cures for diseases and organ regeneration. Yet, beneath these
promises lie profound ethical dilemmas that we, as a society, cannot afford to overlook.

The issue of human cloning goes beyond mere scientific advancement—it cuts to the core of our
understanding of human dignity, individuality, and the rights of every person. Cloning raises questions
that cannot simply be answered by science; they demand reflection on the values and moral
boundaries that guide our progress. Today, I will explain why human DNA cloning should be halted,
not just on scientific grounds, but on ethical, philosophical, and humanitarian ones.

Violation of Human Identity and Individuality

First, we must confront the most fundamental ethical concern: the violation of human identity and
individuality. Human beings are unique, and this uniqueness is central to our understanding of
personhood. Each of us is shaped by a complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and experiential
factors. Human cloning, however, disrupts this balance. A clone is a genetic copy, created not by
natural means but through artificial intervention, with their DNA predetermined by someone else.

The clone, though physically identical to the person they were derived from, is still their own
individual. But imagine living your life knowing that your genetic makeup is not your own, that your
very existence was engineered and controlled by others. The loss of genetic individuality undermines
the autonomy and the self-determination that are central to human dignity.

Moreover, the clone would bear a heavy burden: they would constantly be compared to the person
they were cloned from. Their identity would be tied not to who they are, but to someone else’s life,
achievements, and failures. This creates a psychological and emotional strain that is hard to fathom.
We have yet to consider the psychological toll this would take on individuals whose very existence is
tied to a pre-designed genetic fate.

Medical Risks and Unforeseen Consequences

The scientific risks involved in human cloning are immense. The process of cloning animals has
demonstrated repeatedly that the vast majority of attempts result in failure. For instance, the scientists
who cloned Dolly went through 276 failed attempts before they succeeded. Even after success, Dolly
suffered from premature aging and died young, likely due to genetic defects inherent in the cloning
process. In animals, cloning often results in miscarriages, deformities, and significant health issues,
including organ failure and immune deficiencies.

If we translate these risks to humans, the consequences could be catastrophic. Human cloning would
likely result in similar or even more severe genetic malformations, and the cloned individuals could
suffer from shortened lifespans, cancer, or severe developmental problems. Science cannot
guarantee the safety of this procedure, and we would be creating life with the full knowledge that the
person could endure lifelong suffering. Is this truly progress if the end result is to bring more pain into
the world?

The unpredictability of the cloning process also introduces broader societal risks. A cloned human
being might carry unforeseen genetic defects that we cannot detect or remedy with current
technologies. These defects might not manifest immediately but could emerge later in life, causing
untold harm to the individual. Medical professionals have already pointed out that we cannot
guarantee a cloned embryo will develop normally due to the potential for faulty reprogramming of the
DNA. Cloning carries too many unknowns and the risks of failure are too high to be ethically
defensible.

Exploitation of Women and Inequality

Another critical issue is the exploitation of women in the cloning process. Cloning, whether for
research or reproductive purposes, requires the harvesting of a significant number of eggs. To obtain
these eggs, women must undergo a painful and invasive procedure that involves hormonal injections
and egg retrieval surgeries. This procedure carries risks such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
(OHSS), which can cause severe pain, infertility, and even death in some cases.

Research has shown that in many cases, women from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are
disproportionately targeted to donate eggs. They are often promised financial compensation, but the
risks to their health are seldom fully explained. We are, in effect, asking women to bear the physical
burden of a dangerous procedure for the sake of scientific experimentation. This exploitation is
unethical, and it highlights the deep inequalities that would be perpetuated by pursuing human
cloning. Is it just to place the weight of this scientific experiment on the shoulders of vulnerable
women?

Furthermore, human cloning would likely create a market where genetic material and human embryos
become commodities to be bought and sold. This commodification of human life raises serious
concerns about justice and equality. Would only the wealthy have access to the benefits of cloning?
Would the poor be left to suffer the consequences, while the rich gain genetically engineered offspring
free from disease? These inequalities would deepen societal divisions and lead to a world where
genetic engineering becomes a privilege of the few, rather than a shared human benefit.

Slippery Slope Towards Reproductive Cloning

Finally, we cannot ignore the slippery slope that human cloning presents. Even if cloning is pursued
for therapeutic reasons, such as generating stem cells or organs, it is only a small step from there to
reproductive cloning, where entire human beings are cloned and brought to term. Once cloned
embryos are created in a laboratory, the temptation to implant them into wombs and produce full
human clones will be hard to resist.

The idea of reproductive cloning introduces even more ethical challenges. What kind of society would
we create if we allowed people to clone themselves? Would we be reducing human beings to mere
products of scientific manipulation? The dangers of such a practice are evident, and the societal
implications—ranging from eugenics to the possibility of “designer babies”—are chilling. Do we want
to live in a world where human life is manufactured and controlled like a product on an assembly line?

Emotional Appeal

I ask you now to reflect on the broader implications of human cloning:

Would we want to live in a world where our uniqueness, our very identity, can be copied and
commodified?
How would we reconcile the suffering of cloned individuals, knowing that they were brought into the
world through a process fraught with risk and uncertainty?

Cloning may offer the promise of medical breakthroughs, but the cost to our humanity, dignity, and
individual rights is too high. We must not allow the allure of scientific progress to blind us to the
profound ethical consequences that cloning presents.

Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

In today’s rapidly advancing world, the intersection of science, ethics, and innovation is more critical
than ever. With breakthroughs in biotechnology and genetics, we are confronted with profound
questions about how to responsibly harness these advancements. One of the most pressing issues in
this realm is the patenting of biological entities, including genes. Today, I stand in favor of the motion
that the patenting of biological entities should be allowed to promote innovation and reward scientific
advancements.

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

In today’s rapidly advancing world, the intersection of science, ethics, and innovation is more critical
than ever. With breakthroughs in biotechnology and genetics, we are confronted with profound
questions about how to responsibly harness these advancements. One of the most pressing issues in
this realm is the patenting of biological entities, including genes. Today, I stand in favor of the motion
that the patenting of biological entities should be allowed to promote innovation and reward scientific
advancements.

What is a Patent?

Before delving deeper, let’s clarify what a patent is. A patent is an exclusive right granted for a limited
period, typically 20 years, by the state to inventors, allowing them to prevent others from exploiting
their inventions without authorization. Patent applications contain claims that outline the specific
protections granted. Importantly, the commercial exploitation of an invention covered by a patent
without the patent holder’s consent is termed infringement. While a patent allows inventors to
capitalize on their work, it does not confer an absolute right to exploit the invention, as other existing
patents and laws may also apply.

Criteria and Process for Granting Patents

To qualify for a patent, several criteria must be met: the invention must be eligible for patenting, novel,
non-obvious, useful, and fully disclosed in the application. Moreover, the invention cannot violate
public morals or order. The process begins with filing a patent application, which undergoes a
substantive examination by a patent office. If deemed allowable, the patent is granted but can still be
challenged by third parties.

The Importance of Patents in Commerce

The role of patents extends beyond individual inventors; they are vital in various sectors of commerce,
particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, which is heavily reliant on strong intellectual property (IP)
protection for several reasons:

1. Recouping Substantial Costs: The costs of bringing a novel medicine to market are
substantial, including expenses associated with carrying out clinical trials and meeting regulatory
requirements for safety. For instance, estimates have shown that developing a new prescription
medicine can cost upwards of $802 million. This figure highlights the financial risks involved,
underscoring the need for patent protection to ensure that companies can recover their investments.
2. Protection Against Easy Copying: The pharmaceutical industry develops products
that are relatively easy to replicate. Without patent protection, any competitor could simply copy a
medicine developed by another company and sell it without having to invest in the necessary research
and development. This lack of protection would severely undermine the incentive to innovate.
3. Addressing High Failure Rates in Development: The pharmaceutical industry is
characterized by high failure rates in research and development. Only about one out of every 5,000
compounds discovered eventually reaches the market as a novel medicine. This staggering statistic
emphasizes the importance of patent protection; without it, many potential breakthroughs might never
be pursued, ultimately depriving patients of new treatments.
 4. Investment Attraction for Small Companies: Smaller biotechnology firms, especially in
healthcare, rely heavily on IP to attract financing, particularly from venture capitalists. Patents enable
these companies to establish alliances that help share the costs of research and development or
provide support when a product is launched. Interestingly, many biotech firms do not manufacture
products themselves but engage in research, aiming to license their patents and databases for profit.
This dynamic is particularly prevalent in the United States.
5. Balancing Public and Private Interests: While patents are designed to promote public
interest by encouraging the development of new medicines and vaccines, it is crucial to evaluate
whether this balance has been fairly struck, particularly concerning patents that assert rights over
DNA and other biological entities. The patent system, while essential, requires careful scrutiny to
ensure that it serves both inventors and the public effectively.

Ethical Considerations: The Four Principles of Medical Ethics

As we navigate the patenting landscape, we must consider the four principles of medical ethics:
autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

1. Autonomy emphasizes the importance of individuals’ rights to make informed

choices. Patents empower researchers and inventors to pursue their innovations, ultimately allowing
patients to benefit from informed decisions regarding their healthcare.
2. Beneficence requires that we act in the best interests of patients. By allowing patents,
we enable the development of new treatments and therapies. Take, for instance, Gleevec, a
revolutionary medication for chronic myeloid leukemia. The patent system incentivized Novartis to
invest in its research and development, leading to a life-saving treatment for many patients.
3. Non-maleficence, or the obligation to avoid harm, is upheld through rigorous testing
and compliance standards encouraged by patents. The patent system promotes thorough research
processes, ensuring that new treatments are safe for public use.
4. Justice addresses fairness in healthcare. While patents may initially lead to higher
prices, they ultimately facilitate competition and the eventual availability of generics, promoting wider
access to essential medications over time.

Examples of Successful Innovations Driven by Patenting

Historical examples illustrate the transformative power of patenting in the field of biotechnology. The
development of human insulin by Genentech, patented in 1978, revolutionized diabetes management
and is a prime example of how patents can lead to significant medical advancements. Similarly, the
ongoing innovations surrounding CRISPR technology have been driven by the patent system,
resulting in groundbreaking applications in medicine and agriculture that promise to address both
genetic disorders and food security challenges.

Conclusion: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest

In conclusion, the patenting of biological entities is essential for fostering innovation, promoting ethical
research practices, and ultimately benefiting society. While concerns about accessibility and equity
are valid, the patent system provides a necessary framework for encouraging scientific advancement.

To those who question this motion, I ask you to consider: What would our world look like without the
protections that incentivize inventors to push the boundaries of science? The implications of stifling
innovation in such a critical area are profound, potentially leaving countless lives untouched by the
benefits of modern medicine.

Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters,

In an age where technological advancement seems to know no bounds, we face ethical dilemmas that
challenge our core values. Today, we are confronted with a fundamental question: Should we allow
the patenting of biological entities, including life forms and their genetic make-up? The motion we are
debating today asserts that patenting biological entities should be prohibited because life forms and
their genetic makeup should not be owned or commercialized. I stand firmly in favor of this motion.

The Context of Our Argument

The patenting of life forms is not merely an abstract legal issue; it is a pressing ethical concern that
resonates across the globe. It affects farmers struggling to access seeds, researchers who wish to
study naturally occurring organisms, and communities that rely on traditional knowledge for their
livelihoods. For instance, in many developing countries, local farmers are often unable to use
patented seeds without incurring significant costs, leading to food insecurity and undermining their
traditional agricultural practices.

The Four Principles of Medical Ethics

As we explore this topic, we must consider the four fundamental principles of medical ethics:
autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

1. Autonomy: This principle emphasizes the right of individuals to make informed

decisions about their lives and health. Patenting life forms infringes upon the autonomy of
communities that have used certain biological resources for generations. It denies them the ability to
freely access and utilize the knowledge that belongs to them.
2. Beneficence: The principle of beneficence urges us to act in ways that promote the
well-being of others. Patents on biological entities can hinder the development of essential medicines
and treatments. For example, the patenting of genetically modified crops has led to a concentration of
control in the hands of a few corporations, limiting farmers’ ability to choose what they grow and
ultimately impacting food security.
3. Non-maleficence: Non-maleficence means “do no harm.” The patenting of life forms
can have unintended negative consequences, including ecological harm and health risks associated
with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We have seen examples where patented GMOs have
crossed into non-GMO crops, leading to a loss of biodiversity and threatening the livelihoods of
organic farmers.
4. Justice: This principle calls for fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens.
Patents on biological entities disproportionately benefit large corporations in developed countries,
often at the expense of indigenous communities and developing nations that contribute to global
biodiversity. This inequity raises serious ethical questions about who benefits from these patents and
who is left behind.

Examples of the Harmful Effects of Patenting Life Forms

The real-world implications of patenting life forms are troubling. Consider the case of the neem tree, a
natural pesticide used by farmers for centuries. A multinational corporation attempted to patent a
process for extracting a chemical from this tree, thereby asserting ownership over a resource that has
been used sustainably by local communities for generations. This not only threatened the livelihoods
of farmers but also demonstrated how the patent system can lead to biopiracy—where companies
profit from the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples without fair compensation.

Another example is the patenting of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are linked to breast and
ovarian cancer. The company that held the patent restricted access to testing and research, limiting
patients’ choices and driving up costs. This monopoly over genetic information raised profound ethical
questions about the ownership of our own genetic makeup.

The Call for a Moratorium on Life Form Patenting

We are at a critical juncture where we must reconsider the implications of allowing patents on life
forms. Many advocates, including scientists, environmentalists, and social activists, argue that the
patenting of life forms should be prohibited. They assert that life is a shared heritage of humanity, and
no individual or corporation should be able to claim ownership over it.

The call for change is echoed by the World Trade Organization’s ongoing discussions about revising
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Developing
countries are urging a review of these policies, emphasizing the need to protect biodiversity and
ensure food security for all.

An Emotional Conclusion

As we ponder the future of our planet and the role of life forms within it, I ask you this: What kind of
world do we want to create for future generations? A world where life itself can be bought and sold, or
one where we honor and protect the intricate web of life that sustains us all? The choice is ours to
make. Let us choose a path of compassion, fairness, and respect for the natural world.

Thank you.

————

Honorable chairperson, respected adjudicators, and fellow debaters,

In recent years, we've witnessed an alarming surge in corporations rushing to patent everything from
genetically modified seeds to human gene sequences. Just last year, over 20,000 biological patents
were filed globally, raising serious ethical concerns about the commercialization of life itself.

I stand firmly in support of the motion that patenting biological entities should be prohibited, as it
fundamentally violates core medical ethics principles and threatens the very essence of life as a
shared natural heritage.

Let me elaborate through the lens of the four fundamental principles of medical ethics:

1. Autonomy: Patenting biological entities infringes on individual and community autonomy by

restricting access to natural resources and traditional knowledge that have been freely available for
generations.

2. Beneficence: While proponents claim patents promote innovation, they actually hinder collective
scientific progress by creating monopolies that limit research and collaboration.

3. Non-maleficence: The current system causes direct harm by making essential medicines and
agricultural resources unaffordable for many communities, particularly in developing nations.

4. Justice: Biological patents create an unjust system where wealthy corporations can monopolize and
profit from naturally occurring substances and traditional knowledge, often acquired from indigenous
communities without fair compensation.

Consider the case of the neem tree in India. For centuries, local communities used this plant for
medicine and agriculture. Yet, in 1994, W.R. Grace secured a patent for neem-based solutions,
temporarily preventing these same communities from using their traditional knowledge commercially.
It took ten years of legal battles to overturn this biopiracy.

In healthcare, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene patents by Myriad Genetics exemplify the dangers of
biological patents. Until these patents were challenged, the company maintained a monopoly on
breast cancer genetic testing, charging over $3,000 per test and preventing other researchers from
developing potentially life-saving alternatives.

Furthermore, in agriculture, Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seeds have led to devastating
consequences for farmers worldwide. Many have faced lawsuits for the natural occurrence of
patented genes in their crops through cross-pollination – a clear demonstration of how biological
patents can criminalize natural processes.

These examples clearly demonstrate that patenting life forms creates an unsustainable and unethical
system that prioritizes profit over human welfare and scientific progress.

Life itself, in all its forms, belongs to no one and everyone simultaneously. It is the product of billions
of years of evolution and countless natural processes. By allowing corporations to claim ownership
over biological entities, we are not just compromising ethical principles – we are selling our collective
natural heritage to the highest bidder.

I leave you with this thought: When we allow companies to patent and own the very building blocks of
life, what will be left for humanity to inherit, and what kind of world are we creating for our children?

Thank you.

This speech incorporates the AREL technique, addresses the four medical ethics principles, includes
relevant examples, and concludes with an emotional question. The speech should take approximately
7 minutes to deliver at a moderate pace.