Abortion should be made illegal.
People simply do not know what they are getting into. Abortion is a dangerous procedure that kills 48,000 women annually and scars another 5,000,000 for the rest of their lives, both physically and mentally, according to Lisa B. Haddad and Nawal M. Nour in a study for the National Institutes of Health. Pro-abortionists may claim that abortions are safe, and that is only partially true. Almost half of worldwide abortions are unsafe, about 20,000,000 of the existing 42,000,000, were actually unsafe. This number is widely agreed upon, as I found in my studies, on the Guttmacher website, WebMD, and the National Institutes of Health website alike. While in developed countries this risk is much lower, it is still very real. Abortion is more dangerous than actually delivering the baby and then putting him or her up for adoption, as a study on LifeSiteNews by Carolyn Moynihan shows. This study presents evidence that in Chile, which has the second-lowest maternal death rate in the world, the deaths of mothers quickly dropped as abortion was outlawed. Many women are still convinced that what they are doing is the best for the baby, but regardless of the truth of that statement, they may not know about safe alternatives for both them and their child or children. So is it really worth it to abort despite all of this risk? The answer is no, but pro-abortionists may say that it is not the place of the government to determine this because illegal abortions will hurt more people. According to Susan A. Cohen in a report for the Guttmacher Institute, developing countries with strict abortion laws are riddled with unsafe abortions that harm the mothers. Most of these are performed in unsafe conditions. However, the same study in Chile from before refutes this claim. The difference? Information. Chileans likely have a greater ability to access information than many people in Africa do. The information problem is not localized to Africa, though. An interview with Tillie Trebon demonstrates how many people do not have informed, or even fully formulated, opinions about abortions. If information were accessible to more people, it would be easier to make people have less abortions, and safer abortions in the case that they still occur. In addition to this falsehood, a report on LifeSiteNews by former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson tells us that Planned Parenthood will illegally help mothers abort their unborn children in the case of new abortion laws. They would do this by teaching women how to overdose on vitamins to induce a miscarriage and subsequently return to the clinic to have the dead fetus removed. Thus, it is the government"s role to outlaw abortion and enforce that law. It is a falsehood that there would be a huge number of illegal abortions but Planned Parenthood and others will stop at nothing to make sure people get those abortions. Many people have misconceptions about how safe abortions are, as seen in all three of the interviews I conducted; people were shocked how dangerous abortions were. However, they then turned around and said that releasing abortion laws would make abortions safer. This, while seeming logical, is not. Lessening restrictions on abortions will allow people to take shortcuts during the procedure, further endangering the mothers who are already at high risk. People argue repeatedly that restrictive abortion laws endanger women, but this only occurs with a number of factors, primarily education. If people were educated about the dangers of abortion, much would be different. In all three interviews, the numbers of deaths shocked people and injuries abortion has caused, yet people continue to argue constantly that abortion is safe while hoping that nobody actually looks at the facts. If all people would be educated about how dangerous these procedures are, there would be a much lower abortion rate and more laws requiring strict health standards. Yet no matter how hard we try to make abortions safe, one person usually dies.
Perhaps the biggest argument about abortion is that a fetus is a human. If a fetus is a human, naturally a massive dilemma arises; over 50 million children were killed. However, many pro-choice advocates are adamant either that a fetus is not human, that it is fine to abort if the mother"s life is in danger, or that it is acceptable if the child will not have a good life. There are several responses to each: firstly, it is proven that a human is an independent human being. Secondly, if a mother is willing to put her life before her child that creates a scarring for life mentally. Finally, it is uncertain that the child will not have a good life. Many choose to abort if their child has Down syndrome, but this is unacceptable. I personally know several people with Down syndrome who are living happy lives. It is not a generous choice to abort; it is a selfish one that pro-choice advocates are trying to mask. Nevertheless, the all-encompassing debate is whether or not a fetus is human. We see many people debating, however there are a few facts one can discern. According to Dr. Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. for the American Bioethics Advisory Commission, a fetus is absolutely human because of a few critical points. First, the fetus is not part of the mother. The fetus is individual combinations of DNA that is not the same as the mother"s nor does the fetus provide any biological benefit to the mother. Second, the fetus is completely responsible for its own growth. Many would expect that the mother"s cells would "teach" the fetus how to grow, but the fetus" own cells already can make the fetus. Many abortion supporters would argue, however, that the fetus is absolutely dependent on the mother for food and other nutrients. Dr. Cindy Martin, M.D., in her interview, stated that a baby could not survive on its own until about 22 weeks. However, we see that this changes based on scientific advancements of the time. If a fetus were born at 26 weeks 1,000 years ago, that fetus would undoubtedly die. However, now we can keep that fetus alive and it could go on to have a happy, healthy life. Thus, we can reasonably expect this process to continue all the way up to conception, where the woman"s egg and its 13 chromosomes interacts with the man"s sperm and its 13 chromosomes to produce something unique from the parents" 26 chromosomes each. Each fetus is a mixture of 26 chromosomes that make it completely different from any other human. Pro-abortionists argue then that a clone, by this definition, would not be a human. This is, in essence, true. Cloning is an extremely dangerous process that, without exception, has produced subjects physically damaged, or dead, and mentally unstable. This is why it is illegal to clone humans. It is not moral to create a specimen only to observe its personality deterioration and excruciating physical death. This clearly demonstrates how a fetus is a human and how the pro-choice argument falls apart. When we finally come back to the opinion of abortion supporters, we see that said opinion is formed on unscientific and biased sentiment that has passed through multiple filters. The clear truth is that a fetus is a human being.
In conclusion, abortion is legalized murder that not only kills the victim but also endangers the bystander. The only way women and babies can be safe is if this process is completely outlawed. It is unacceptable for humanity to threaten life, especially when that tiny life is not able to defend itself. The fact is that abortion has never been about the welfare of an unprepared mother but the profit of giants like Planned Parenthood feeding off people in their darkest hours. Is this what we want our society to be remembered by? A place where we are more concerned with population control and the importance of some people than others than with protecting the first unalienable right?
7. Martin, Dr. Cindy, M.D. Personal interview. 8 March 2015.
9. Serassio, Serena (county attorney). Personal interview. 5 March 2015.
10. Trebon, Tillie. Personal interview. 26 February 2015. (Source selected for value in evaluating the argument that rape and incest are ok for abortions)
Pro’s safety argument is not compelling. Pro does not assert that safe abortions do not exist. In fact, it can be inferred from Pro's statements that Pro's position on the matter is that safe abortions do exist. For example, Pro states that "[a]lmost half of worldwide abortions are unsafe, about 20,000,000 of the existing 42,000,000, were actually unsafe." An equivalent statement would be that "more than half of worldwide abortions are safe, about 22,000,000 of the existing 42,000,000, were actually safe."
So, apparently Pro's position isn't that safe abortions do not exist. Rather, Pro's position is that all abortions should be prohibited because some abortions are not safe. This type of reasoning is known as "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Pro's safety argument fails because the interests of safety are not advanced by prohibiting safe abortions. The safety argument cannot be used to justify prohibiting both safe and unsafe abortions - It can only be used to justify prohibiting unsafe abortions.
Turning to Pro's other argument - Pro asserts that human fetuses, and presumably embryos, are humans. Pro further argues that because a fetus or embryo is a human, it is therefore immoral and/or unethical to terminate a pregnancy because doing so results in the death of a human. For reasons discussed below, Pro's reasoning is flawed and should be disregarded.
I do not dispute Pro's assertion that human embryos and fetuses are humans. Rather, I dispute Pro's underlying assumption that the quality of being human is the most significant material fact to the ethical inquiry – It isn't. Whether or not an organism is human is fundamentally immaterial to the ethical inquiry. Rather, it is those metaphysical qualities strongly associated with humans (i.e. Sentience, Intelligence, Self-Awareness, and Consciousness; "SISAC") which are material.
The intrinsic moral and ethical value of an organism is positively correlated with the degree to which it exhibits SISAC. Stated differently, the more SISAC an organism exhibits, the greater the intrinsic moral value of that organism's life. To help illustrate - Canines, felines, cetaceans, and primates (excluding humans) are certainly not human, but, to a certain degree less than humans, the species of these taxa exhibit SISAC. It is therefore morally repugnant to inflict pain upon and/or kill these creatures absent good cause, but less so than killing a man. Additionally, most reasonable people would be in agreement that inflicting pain upon and/or killing insects, arachnids, or other arthropods is significantly less repugnant than doing the same to canines, felines, cetaceans, and/or primates. This is because insects, arachnids, and other arthropods exhibit SISAC to a substantially lesser degree than do canines, felines, cetaceans, and primates (excluding humans).
Relating this back to Pro's position - A human zygote, embryo, or fetus, while it may technically be a human, does not exhibit, and never has exhibited, any degree of SISAC. Consequently, the corresponding degree of moral repugnance associated with killing that organism (e.g., in the case of abortion), is very low. It doesn't matter whether or not the organism in question is human or not human - It is only the degree of SISAC which matters.
Turning toward Pro's other arguments, these seem to be arguments against imagined positions of pro-choice adversaries. (Pro's words: "However, many pro-choice advocates are adamant either that a fetus is not human, that it is fine to abort if the mother's life is in danger, or that it is acceptable if the child will not have a good life. There are several responses to each") I will not be burdened with defending positions that I haven't explicitly ascribed to. So, I will not be responding to these arguments.
RE: Sources - I see no reason to dispute Pro's facts because the soundness of my arguments does not appear to be contingent upon facts other than Pro's. So, I will yield to Pro's sources for the moment.
2. Thank you for actually acknowledging that fetuses are humans- the denial of that happens quite often despite scientific evidence.
3. Going to the SISAC point, there are a few flaws with this. One would be, again, that the vast majority of the time abortions are for convenience- the rest of the time (about 1%) is from rape, incest, or life-threatening cases. So going back to the SISAC point, an analogy would be that it is more convenient to run over a dog or cat in the road than to go around it so you have the right to do so. That, most people would agree, is disgusting. Abortion is the same exact thing (for almost all cases)- it is more convenient to abort this being with less SISAC than you so you have the right to do so. Next, if you want to adopt this point, you MUST agree that the very elderly and the very young can be killed because they have a lower SISAC. In addition, this would be acceptable for anybody with dementia, Down Syndrome, or people in certain stages of cancer. All of these things are justifiable using SISAC- but they are still morally wrong. This would be the same as testing lethal drugs on animals because they have a lower SISAC; but does anyone actually think that the animal deserves this? In addition to this, you have said that the fetus is, indeed, alive. In this way, why is it any more acceptable to kill and eat a cat than to abort an unborn baby? People who are revolted at animal cruelty turn a blind eye to fetus cruelty. So, the SISAC point really doesn't amount to anything.
4. These are not just imagined positions; these are real-life pro-choice arguments.
5. If you could provide sources for your original arguments so I can reference them it would be very helpful. As of now the credibility of many of your arguments is diminished because of lack of sources.
RETRACTION – I made a false factual assertion in round 1. The factual assertion is here:
“A human zygote, embryo, or fetus, while it may technically be a human, does not exhibit, and never has exhibited, any degree of SISAC.”
The statement is not true. The first indication of any degree of SISAC in humans occurs at approximately the 16th week of gestation [1 - "Hearing. Responses to low frequency noise can be recorded from approximately the 16th wk in the fetus brain"], and the indications gradually become more numerous until birth. This does not substantially alter my position on abortion in general, nor does it substantially alter the structure of my arguments. However, I feel that is important to be factual.
RE: Safety - Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal.  "Legal induced abortion [in the United States] is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion."  Pro argues that all abortions should be outlawed because some abortions are unsafe. This argument is fallacious, and I will use an analogy to help illustrate this.
The structure of Pro's safety argument:
Some abortions are safe, but some abortions are unsafe. In the interests of safety, we should eliminate all of the risk from abortions by prohibiting all abortions.
True, this would eliminate the risk from abortion if women would actually comply with the restriction (a big if). However, I don't intend to discuss the issue of noncompliance with abortion restrictions. A very similarly structured argument to Pro's would be as follows:
Some roads are safe, but some roads are unsafe. In the interests of safety, we should eliminate the risk from roads by prohibiting the use of all roads.
True, this would eliminate the risk from unsafe roads provided that compliance was high. However, it should be clear at this point that there is an error in reasoning. The error is as follows: Pro lumps together both unsafe and safe abortions in to a single category, then seeks to use the cause of safety to justify prohibiting all of the procedures from this category. Pro's method of categorization is not proper. If Pro's objective is safety, then Pro must categorize on the basis of safety or its correlates. Otherwise, the categorized items will include items that are not related to the stated objective. In this case, Pro's method of categorization improperly includes safe abortions when prohibiting safe abortions is unrelated to Pro's safety objective.
RE: SISAC Rebuttal -
Pro rebuts my SISAC argument with two arguments. First Pro asserts, without any evidence, that the level of SISAC exhibited by a fetus or is comparable to that of a cat or dog, and that it is immoral and unethical to inflict pain upon and/or kill these animals. Therefore, Pro argues, it is immoral and/or unethical to inflict pain upon and/or kill a fetus or embryo. Pro's second rebuttal is that if you agree with my SISAC argument, then "you MUST agree that the very elderly and the very young can be killed because they have a lower SISAC."
My response to Pro's first argument is to point out that his assertion - that the level of SISAC exhibited by human fetuses is comparable to that of cats and dogs - is baseless. I restate my position that it is morally neutral to kill organisms that exhibit a level of SISAC that is zero or near-zero, and that have never exhibited any level of SISAC greater than near-zero. Examples: Killing bacteria or protists; Harvesting of crops; Mosquito eradication; Pertinently - The destruction of human zygotes. With gestating humans, the level of SISAC begins at zero with conception, and there is no indication of any SISAC until the 16th week of gestation . After that point, the indications gradually increase as the human develops. Birth is certainly not the end point of this development. The human brain doesn't stop developing until sometime in the third decade  (i.e. 20's) of a human's life.
My response to Pro's second argument is that he has inaccurately portrayed my own argument. This is a fallacious form of argument known as a "straw man." [5 - See for explanation of term, not as evidentiary support] Pertinently, I never stated that it is OK to kill organisms if "they have a lower SISAC." In fact, I stated explicitly that it is morally repugnant to inflict pain upon or kill creatures that exhibit a degree of SISAC that is less than that of the average man. This is what I said in round 1:
The intrinsic moral and ethical value of an organism is positively correlated with the degree to which it exhibits SISAC. Stated differently, the more SISAC an organism exhibits, the greater the intrinsic moral value of that organism's life.
RE: Positions of pro-life adversaries -
I have no opinions on those positions. I will defend my positions, not the positions of others.
I'm sort of under the gun here. I intend to introduce new arguments in the next round.
GMan7112 forfeited this round.
My opponent apparently has no interest in participating any further.
1. I am not arguing that abortion should be outlawed because SOME abortions are unsafe, I am arguing that it should be outlawed because ALMOST HALF are unsafe. From a global standpoint, abortion is much more dangerous than childbirth, accounting for 13% of maternal deaths. As I said before, since such a high number of abortions are unsafe it is unreasonable to allow them to continue. Take Chile as an example. Chile has had abortion outlawed since 1989 and has the lowest amount of unsafe abortions as well as the second highest rate of maternal health in the entire world; even more than the US. This shows that it is a lot safer to naturally have a child and that the argument of "women will just get abortions illegally" is false. Con used a comparison between abortions and roads in his/her arguments, but this analogy again does not work at extreme amounts of danger. Abortions are so dangerous from a global standpoint it is not feasible for them to continue.
2. My point on the SISAC argument still stands. While people may try to make killing a fetus SEEM less repugnant than killing another person, all of my comparisons still work. It is not less repugnant to kill a fetus than any other human being because that necessitates many other moral dilemmas.
As you can see, as abortion is unsafe, institutionalized murder, it should immediately be outlawed. That is what all of the factual and not supposed evidence points to.
After failing to respond for 72 hours resulting in a forfeited round, Pro has returned with many unsubstantiated facts and conclusory statements.
My sincere apologies. I have been experiencing technical difficulties for a while.
A likely story.
Please excuse this previous round from voting.
Pro had 72 hours to respond and failed to do so. Pro is responsible for failing to debate.
Pro is arguing that abortion should be outlawed because some abortions are unsafe. “Some” is inclusive of “almost half."
From a global standpoint, abortion is much more dangerous than childbirth, accounting for 13% of maternal deaths.
Pro's statistic is not substantiated with evidence. There is no purpose in focusing globally other than for Pro to be able to include in his statistics as many unsafe abortions as he possibly can.
As I said before, since such a high number of abortions are unsafe it is unreasonable to allow them to continue.
If safety is Pro’s concern, then a reasonable alternative would be to prohibit only the unsafe abortions. The interests of safety are not advanced by prohibiting safe abortions.
Take Chile as an example. Chile has had abortion outlawed since 1989 and has the lowest amount of unsafe abortions as well as the second highest rate of maternal health in the entire world; even more than the US.
Pro cites no source when alleging these facts. Pro brings the claim, so the burden of proof is on him. Pro must do more than simply allege facts - Pro must establish his facts with evidence.
This shows that it is a lot safer to naturally have a child and that the argument of "women will just get abortions illegally" is false.
Unsubstantiated facts show nothing. Even if they were true, they wouldn’t demonstrate that “it is a lot safer to naturally have a child and that the argument of ‘women will just get abortions illegally’ is false.”
Con used a comparison between abortions and roads in his/her arguments, but this analogy again does not work at extreme amounts of danger. Abortions are so dangerous from a global standpoint it is not feasible for them to continue.
Again, Pro has failed to justify his method of categorizing abortions. Pro’s stated objective is safety, but does not categorize abortions on the basis of safety or its correlates. Pro lumps every method abortion, world-wide, both safe and unsafe, in to a single category, measures the average risk of an abortion from that new category, and then declares that the average risk of an abortion is unacceptably high.
Pro’s position is that ALL abortions should be prohibited, not just late-term abortions. Pro must demonstrate good cause to prohibit abortion in even the earliest phases of pregnancy where sentience hasn’t emerged yet. (e.g. a zygote 1 second after conception)
As you can see, as abortion is unsafe, institutionalized murder, it should immediately be outlawed.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Abortion is legal, and thus not murder, in many jurisdictions.
That is what all of the factual and not supposed evidence points to.
This is an exceptionally conclusory statement.
2. Is there a problem with conclusion statements? I felt it necessary to use them to provide some sense of, well, conclusion.
3. My sources are all cited in my first argument. I will provide any others I use if I use any more.
4. Is it really reasonable to allow abortions to continue if almost half are unsafe? Sure, it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" but an insanely high amount of abortions are unsafe- on average, abortions are more dangerous than actually birthing the child. This is substantiated with evidence, as I have mentioned.
5. It is not possible to only prohibit unsafe abortions. There is such a sheer number, included with the fact that many of those are legal. While abortion restrictions are put in place to protect women, it is not always successful. In third world countries they don't have the resources to police for unsafe abortions either.
6. I mentioned that I have cited sources for the Chile study above. In addition, look at this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com...
7. It is not an unsubstantiated statement to claim that women will not get illegal abortions. I have previously mentioned the Chile study. It shows that education, not abortion, decreases birth rates, as well as showing that women do not get illegal abortions nearly as much as abortion advocates claim women would.
8. It was not my intention to throw all abortions into the same group, but as I have stated before it is impossible to police these abortions. Look at this article: http://healthandrights.ccnmtl.columbia.edu...
The article states how UNSAFE abortion accounts for 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, and up to 1/3 in some parts of the world. This only accounts for "unsafe" abortions- not for "safe" abortions meeting requirements but still resulting in death.
9. Look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Under the "Biology" section of "Definition" are the 7 most common criteria of life. Each and every one of those points are met by a zygote 1 second after conception.
10. By examining the article you cited as "1" I have found a moral crisis- that being of comatose patients. Within the section labeled "Abstract" the article noted that fetuses did have reactions to certain environmental stimuli, but it then said that fetuses are in states of almost constant dormancy and that the reactions are preprogrammed. Thus, this very same logic must apply to comatose patients. In addition, this sort of logic is not easily found on the internet and you have provided only one source about it.
In conclusion, abortion is unsafe and kills an innocent human being. It is unacceptable and should be made illegal.
1. If Pro didn’t want his reasons challenged then he shouldn’t have agreed to a debate.
I typically refrain from ad-hominem discussions during debates, but Pro's character is now relevant to this debate because Pro has made a factual assertion based on personal knowledge - Pro is a witness. Furthermore, Pro has attacked my character. Pro has opened the door to this issue, and I will address it.
Pro's factual assertion from Round 4: "I have been experiencing technical difficulties for a while. Please excuse this previous round from voting."
The conduct of the debaters is subject to voting. Failing to debate is typically frowned upon. So, Pro's reasons for failing are relevant. Pro asserts that his failure to debate should be excused because it was caused by "technical difficulties". All we have to evaluate Pro's assertion is his honesty. Pro’s assertion is not a reliable indicator of the facts because Pro has shown himself to be dishonest throughout the course of this debate.
Examples of Pro's lies -
Round 2: "it is more convenient to run over a dog or cat in the road than to go around it so you have the right to do so. That, most people would agree, is disgusting. Abortion is the same exact thing"
Obviously, abortion is not the "same exact thing". The statement was false and Pro knew this when he made that statement.
Round 4: "I am not arguing that abortion should be outlawed because SOME abortions are unsafe, I am arguing that it should be outlawed because ALMOST HALF are unsafe."
Pro argued that abortion should be outlawed because some abortions are unsafe. "Some" is inclusive of "almost half". Pro's statement was false, and Pro probably knew this when he made his statement.
Round 4: "As you can see, as abortion is unsafe, institutionalized murder, it should immediately be outlawed. That is what all of the factual and not supposed evidence points to."
Obviously, not "all" of the facts and evidence point towards Pro's conclusion. It was a false statement and Pro knew this when he made the statement.
I could list more examples, but the foregoing should suffice to demonstrate the point. Pro knowingly makes false statements. Pro is a liar. Pro's excuses should be responded to with skepticism, especially if they appear improbable. That is exactly what I did, and it was not rude or uncalled for to do so.
2. Pro seems to have misread “conclusory statements” as “conclusion statements.” Conclusory: “consisting of or relating to a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered” http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. Pro asserts that he cited his sources in round 1, but Pro’s sources aren’t cited in a manner where it is reasonably discernable as to which asserted fact corresponds to which source. This makes it unreasonably burdensome to check Pro’s facts and sources. Because of this, Pro’s sources don’t count. Look at Pro’s method of citing sources and his list of sources from round 1 to see for yourself.
4. It is reasonable to allow safe abortions to continue. Pro concedes that his safety argument throws the baby out with the bathwater.
5. Pro claims that it is impossible to prohibit only unsafe abortions.
Without conceding anything, I offer another alternative -
Prohibit all methods of abortion, except those which have been proven as safe. Legal induced abortion in the United States is safe. (See "Conclusion" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )
6. "I mentioned that I have cited sources for the Chile study above. In addition, look at this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com...;
This has no context.
7. "It is not an unsubstantiated statement to claim that women will not get illegal abortions. I have previously mentioned the Chile study. It shows that education, not abortion, decreases birth rates, as well as showing that women do not get illegal abortions nearly as much as abortion advocates claim women would."
This is off topic. The topic is whether or not all abortions should be prohibited.
8. It was not my intention to throw all abortions into the same group, but as I have stated before it is impossible to police these abortions. Look at this article: http://healthandrights.ccnmtl.columbia.edu......
I can't respond to this because I don't know what Pro is saying.
9. Pro's unstated premise is that if an organism meets the criteria for life then it is immoral to kill that organism. Bacteria meet all of those criteria. It's not immoral to kill the bacteria on your hands when you wash them after using the restroom.
10. Pro is probably arguing that comatose patients exhibit zero SISAC and that my logic dictates that it's therefore OK to kill them. No, this conclusion does not follow from my arguments. My arguments consider whether or not the organism in question has ever exhibited any degree of SISAC in the past. (See, e.g., round 1: "A human zygote, embryo, or fetus, while it may technically be a human, does not exhibit, and never has exhibited, any degree of SISAC.")
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|