The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
famousdebater
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
famousdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 707 times Debate No: 85778
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

harrytruman

Con

Firstly, I want to make myself clear, though I do not agree with abortion, there are certain circumstances where it is acceptable. That being rape, incest, and medical issues. However, having an abortion "just because", or "I don't want to have to take care of my kid", then it is no different than murder. This type of thinking, is the same type of thinking that the feminists are using to justify abortion, they are not justifying it in rape, incest, or medical issues only, they are trying to say that it is OK in any circumstance.

Back during the bronze age of around 3,000-1,000 B.C.E., there was a popular Sumerian religion that worshiped Baal. People would sacrifice their babies to Baal via cooking them alive (getting cooked alive, sounds familiar doesn't it).
Archaeologists wondered how mothers could have their children be cooked alive, and they came to the conclusion, that they were able to have this detestable act done, because they did not consider their babies to be a living human, now this should sound very familiar.

So, no one is arguing that women shouldn't have control of their bodies, they are entitled to complete control over their bodies, however, I am arguing that a fetus is a living human also, and hence is ALSO entitled to complete control over their body, which includes the right not to be cooked alive.
So if you want to argue that women should have control over their bodies, you must argue that babies must have control over their bodies. It is two separate bodies, and hence the baby has rights too, separate from the mother.

Point 1: a fetus is alive:
Now, I will be arguing that a fetus is a living human, and by definition, it is, let's look at the definition of life according to Websters dictionary:
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Please note, nowhere in this definition will you see "took a first breath", and all of these definitions, a fetus fits, it can grow, it will be able to reproduce eventually, it will be able to preform functional activity, and it will continue to change until death.

According to biology, life has these characteristics:
1. Grows and develops (check)
2. Capable of reproduction (check)
3. Consumes and uses energy (check)
4. Responds to stimuli (check)

Point 2: a fetus is NOT a clump of cells:
So, I have established that a fetus is alive, now I will establish that it is not a clump of cells, calling a fetus a "clump of cells" is mind boggling, no scientific mind would look at a fetus, and say "meh- it's a bag of cells", calling it a clump of cells is inherently wrong, a fetus is not a clump of cells any more than you or I are clumps of cells.

Because a "clump" suggests that it has no form or organization, a fetus cannot be considered a "clump of cells", because a fetus's cells has organization, and all those cells are working for the survival of the rest of the "clump", hence, the correct term would be a "system of cells", just like you or me.

Point 3: A fetus is a human:
This is very easy to prove, if you sample a fetus's DNA, and test it, what will you find? The genetic material comes from a human, not a baboon, or a buffalo, or a "clump of cells", a HUMAN.
Problem solved, it's genetics are human genetics, it's a human, what else?
It's dad is a human, it's mom is a human, they aren't ducks are they? So, it would logically follow, that their child will be---- A HUMAN! It cannot be a clump of cells, the dad isn't a clump of cells, the mom isn't a clump of cells, so, logically their offspring will be a human, not a clump of cells.
If I get a duck, and another duck, and I breed them, they will give birth to a duck, same with gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc, they will give birth to gorillas, eagles, snakes, lions, bears, whales, dolphins, etc.
So, if two humans get together, the only logical outcome, is that their offspring will be a human, NOT a clump of cells.
famousdebater

Pro

Framework

My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief.

Capitalism magazine explains this by saying,

“A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” [2]

She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3].

The Fetus Is Not Alive

Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5].

I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period.

There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these.

Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met.

Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7).

Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8).

Growth - The fetus does grow.

Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9).

Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10).

Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.

If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2.


Illegal Abortions

When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)!

Did you know:

“13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”(12)

This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated.


Underaged teenagers

“19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” (12)

This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money.

“To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”(16)

Now let's compare this to the average income of a family:

“The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.”

Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money.

If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teengagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year.


Gender Equality

Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated:

“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” (17)

She continued:

“[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” (17)

This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality.

The philosopher, Judith Thomson said:

“If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” (17)

This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality.

P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality

P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights

C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights

C2: Abortions should be legalized


Conclusion


I have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you don't legalize abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers/ children and it also violates the law. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round. I thank my opponent for initiating such an interesting resolution. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!


Sources

[1] http://bit.ly...;
[2] http://bit.ly...;
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
[6] http://bbc.in...;
[7] http://bit.ly...
[8] http://bit.ly...
[9] http://bit.ly...
[10] http://bit.ly...
[11] http://bit.ly...
[12] http://bit.ly...
[13] http://bit.ly...
[14] http://onforb.es...;
[15] http://elitedai.ly...
[16] http://cnnmon.ie...
[17] http://bbc.in...
[18] http://bit.ly...

Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

"My framework will be based around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily [1]. If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief."

Correct me if I am wrong here, your first point is that liberals support abortion, therefore abortion is morally acceptable because the liberals must be right. This is a poorly attempted appeal to authority.

"She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs [2]. Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person"s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology [3]."

The fetus had no choice in it being in the woman"s womb either, that fetus is like a prisoner there, it had no choice I the matter, here is a story to illustrate this:
"it would be like if I came home one day, and some guy was tied by his feet upside down, he wants to get down so he can leave my house, so I can either A shoot the innocent victim (abortion), or B untie him and let him go (continue with pregnancy), what would you do?"
Additionally, if said fetus is not a product of rape, then that means that the mother consented to it being there.

"Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo [5]."

If it consumes energy, grows and develops, and responds to stimuli, according to the definition of life provided by biology, it is alive.

I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period.
"There are 7 categories in which life can be identified [6]. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion [6]. The fetus only meets 2 of these.
Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met.
Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own (7).
Is a fish alive? Yes, it is, but it never respires, it absorbs oxygen through the liquid surrounding, like a fetus.
Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks (8).
Actually, as soon as grey matter has been formed, it can feel.
Growth - The fetus does grow.
Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce (9).
By that logic children that have not yet hit puberty are not alive, hence killing them is OK.
Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely (10).
I guess people who are constipated are not alive either.
Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.
So people dependent on injected nutrition are not alive either, wow, there"s a lot of dead people walking around these days eh?

"When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate (11). These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother"s part (11). Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too (11)!"

That is because these mothers are deranged psychopaths, under some circumstances, something not so good should be legalized seeing what happened as a result of prohibition, but in other circumstances, it is too evil to allow. This is one of them.

"This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent"s aim to be mitigated."

I think you missed my point, if it isn"t rape, incest, or a medical issue, they should be forced to go forward, so if they NEED one, they can get one, but it they DO NOT need one, they should go forward, and we should put harsh punishments on trying to abort when they o not need to.

"This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources (13,14,15). Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money."

This would fit under an issue that harms both the mother and the child.

"A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life." (17)
She continued:
"[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this " is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy." (17)
This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality.

So let me get this straight, women have the right to murder, because it makes their lives easier? There are a lot of people in everyone"s lives that if they were to go missing then their lives would be so much easier, but it does not justify murder.

The philosopher, Judith Thomson said:
"If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all." (17)
This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality.

That"s how nature set them up, women were made for pregnancy, and men were made for getting themselves killed.
Correct me if I am wrong, this is your argument: a baby makes a woman"s life harder, something that men don"t have to deal with, hence, they have the right to kill to make their lives easier.
I have to listen to my mom, something that adults don"t have to deal with, does that justify the same action, yes or no?
famousdebater

Pro

R1 Rebuttals

My opponent makes the claim that killing babies (ie. infanticide) is ultimately the same as having an abortion. This is not true as my R1 arguments clearly demonstrate. The list that has been complied by biolgoists to determine whether things are living and the fetus clearly does not meet this list. My opponent cannot make baseless assertions as comparisons to abortions. I have provided scientific evidence in support of the fetus being living whereas my opponent has failed to do the same. Without any evidence to support this comparison voters ought to consider it as baring no weight upon the resolution.

My opponent attempt to define life using Webster's dictionary to define life. Unfortunately Webster's dictionary is not used by scientists when determining things. It is not a biological site and it is purposefully vague to as to keep the definition suitable for anybody of any age or background [1]. Of course, even if you do buy my opponent's definition you still ought to presume Pro since this definition includes the condition of reproduction which the fetus is unable to do [2]. Therefore, whichever definition you choose, mine or my opponents, the fetus should be considered to be non-living.

My opponent makes the following claim which is completely false:

"According to biology, life has these characteristics:
1. Grows and develops (check)
2. Capable of reproduction (check)
3. Consumes and uses energy (check)
4. Responds to stimuli (check)" [3]

1 is true. 2 is completely false, and I have proven this already [2]. 3 is correct. 4 is false, it can detect stimuli however it cannot respond to it until much after the legal date for an abortion [4].

I never referred to the fetus as a clump of cells, merely non-living. Therefore the pre-emptive rebuttal stating that the fetus is not a clump of cells is irrelevant since it is already proven to be non-living which is what is important.

My opponent's 3rd point is that the fetus is a human which is false. The genetic material will come out as human because it is growing to become a human however that doesn't mean that it is a human, this simply means that it is developing to become one. My opponent seems to believe that when humans and other species reproduce another member of that species just pops into existence. They are very mistaken. If it's parents are both members of this species then this does not means that it is automatically classified as a member of this species. And even if it is this still doesn't prove that it's living - it simply proves that it could be human (which it isn't). A dead person is still human, but that doesn't mean that it is living does it? Just because something is a member of the same species as something else, this does not mean that it ought to be considered living.

This is the only argument that my opponent presents and since the burden of proof is shared, my opponent is clearly unable to fulfill their burden. Another important thing to note is that my opponent fails to prove the impacts of this to me and to readers. Even if you believe my rebuttal to be insufficient and my opponent's argument to be wrong, you still ought to presume Pro since the impacts are not provided. My opponent fails to say why the fact that the fetus is living means that abortions should be illegal (not that I believe this but my opponent clearly does).

R2 Rebuttals

My opponent completely misunderstands the framework. The framework does not refer to liberals. It refers to libertarians and it provides arguments and a framework for the debate. My opponent has failed to respond to the framework or provide an alternative framework, this is problematic since under my framework abortion should be legal. Without a sufficient rebuttal or alternative, this ultimately means that you can vote Pro based on this alone.

Of course the fetus has no choice in being in the mother's womb. Why is that? The answer is: because the fetus isn't alive and only living things can make decisions [5]. The fetus isn't like a prisoner for a number of reasons. The first being that prisoners are held in prisons to be punished. The fetus is not held in the womb as a punishment. The second reason is that the prisoner is held there against their will. The fetus has no will because it is unable to think or feel things so therefore the fetus is not being held their against its will (this is impossible since the fetus has no will). Even if the fetus had will it still wouldn't be a prisoner because when prisoners are released from jail they are free to go back to civilization. If the fetus is taken out of the womb then it will die. The womb is its only place of security and therefore the womb is not like a prison. For this reason my opponent's analogy is flawed. Another point that my opponent's analogy fails to acknowledge is that you actually have to look after the baby once it's born and this can be extremely expensive as my contentions explain.

Another vital things that I must pick up on is the insufficieny of a rebuttal to my argument in regards to embryotic abortions. I stated that most abortions are done when it is proven for a 100% fact that the embro is not alive (since it is not even at the stage of being a fetus). My opponent responds by saying that it consumes energy, grows and develops and responds to stimuli. It does not respond to stimuli so even by my opponent's definition the embryo is not alive [6].

My opponent makes a common misconception with my biological categories of defining life. I understand that there are people that do not meet all of these categories due to a disability or for some other reason. The problem is that my opponent misunderstands the entire purpose of the argument. The argument is used to define whether a group of things is alive not individual things. We aren't going to go around to every single fetus to test if it's alive or not. We're going to analyze the fetus as a whole and decide whether it's alive or not. Therefore, when analyzing humans using this classification system we analyzed humans on a whole not just every individual humans [7].

My opponent's response to illegal abortions is shocking. He deems mother's to be psychopaths because they want abortions and they are denied the right to do so. Until my opponent is able to prove this, then this argument should not work in his favour since it is under my opponent's burden to provide evidence for this assertion.

My opponent drops the rest of my illegal abortions contention by saying that it's a medical issue. This is not true. Having an illegal abortion can result in death but the argument isn't about this alone. It is also about the fact that there is no point in making it illegal if it's going to happen anyway. My opponent completely ignores this part of the argument and only responds to the statement in regards to people dying and being severely injured due to these illegal abortions which is arguably not a medical reason - rather a political related one.

My opponent dismisses the argument in regards to teenagers having children by saying that this harms both the mother and child. This may be true however the criteria set in R1 is that I am not allowed to argue in regards to rape, medical issues or incest. I haven't argued in regards to any of these and therefore voters ought to consider this argument as dropped by my opponent.

My opponent completely misunderstands my argument and essentially drops all the philosophy in regards to women's rights. He states that this means that women have the right to kill but you cannot kill what isn't alive. Also my opponent fails to acknowledge that this isn't all about whether or not the fetus is living. It is also about human rights.

Sources

[1] http://bit.ly...;
[2] http://bit.ly...;
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...;
[5] http://www2.fiu.edu...;
[6] http://bit.ly...;
[7] http://bbc.in...;
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

"My opponent makes the claim that killing babies (ie. infanticide) is ultimately the same as having an abortion. This is not true as my R1 arguments clearly demonstrate. The list that has been complied by biolgoists to determine whether things are living and the fetus clearly does not meet this list. My opponent cannot make baseless assertions as comparisons to abortions. I have provided scientific evidence in support of the fetus being living whereas my opponent has failed to do the same. Without any evidence to support this comparison voters ought to consider it as baring no weight upon the resolution."

Not true, I listed the 4 characteristics of life, you simply ignored it and said I am wrong.

"My opponent attempt to define life using Webster's dictionary to define life. Unfortunately Webster's dictionary is not used by scientists when determining things. It is not a biological site and it is purposefully vague to as to keep the definition suitable for anybody of any age or background [1]. Of course, even if you do buy my opponent's definition you still ought to presume Pro since this definition includes the condition of reproduction which the fetus is unable to do [2]. Therefore, whichever definition you choose, mine or my opponents, the fetus should be considered to be non-living."

I addressed this, if you will consider a fetus to be not-alive because it cannot reproduce, then you must say that children who have not yet reached puberty are not-alive either, therefor killing them is acceptable. You STILL did not address this point. Instead you come back with the same obviously flawed point you made before.

My opponent makes the following claim which is completely false:

"According to biology, life has these characteristics:
1. Grows and develops (check)
2. Capable of reproduction (check)
3. Consumes and uses energy (check)
4. Responds to stimuli (check)" [3]

1 is true. 2 is completely false, and I have proven this already [2]. 3 is correct. 4 is false, it can detect stimuli however it cannot respond to it until much after the legal date for an abortion."

I addressed 2 already, so now I will address 4; I said "reacts to stimuli", not "responds to stimuli."

"I never referred to the fetus as a clump of cells, merely non-living. Therefore the pre-emptive rebuttal stating that the fetus is not a clump of cells is irrelevant since it is already proven to be non-living which is what is important."

You haven"t proven anything.

"My opponent's 3rd point is that the fetus is a human which is false. The genetic material will come out as human because it is growing to become a human however that doesn't mean that it is a human, this simply means that it is developing to become one. My opponent seems to believe that when humans and other species reproduce another member of that species just pops into existence. They are very mistaken. If it's parents are both members of this species then this does not means that it is automatically classified as a member of this species. And even if it is this still doesn't prove that it's living - it simply proves that it could be human (which it isn't). A dead person is still human, but that doesn't mean that it is living does it? Just because something is a member of the same species as something else, this does not mean that it ought to be considered living."

So, you are saying that a fetus is not a "human", it is a "developing human", therefor, males under the age of 33 and females under the age of 25 are not humans, because they have not finished developing. Am I correct?

"This is the only argument that my opponent presents and since the burden of proof is shared, my opponent is clearly unable to fulfill their burden. Another important thing to note is that my opponent fails to prove the impacts of this to me and to readers. Even if you believe my rebuttal to be insufficient and my opponent's argument to be wrong, you still ought to presume Pro since the impacts are not provided. My opponent fails to say why the fact that the fetus is living means that abortions should be illegal (not that I believe this but my opponent clearly does)."

It is a living human, therefore killing it is murder. And murder is illegal, so abortion should be too.

"My opponent completely misunderstands the framework. The framework does not refer to liberals. It refers to libertarians and it provides arguments and a framework for the debate. My opponent has failed to respond to the framework or provide an alternative framework, this is problematic since under my framework abortion should be legal. Without a sufficient rebuttal or alternative, this ultimately means that you can vote Pro based on this alone."

Libertarian? There"s just one issue, here"s the philosophy behind libertarianism:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are LIFE, Liberty, and (Property); that to preserve these rights, governments were instituted among men."
So, abortion goes in violation of libertarianism, because this "right to abort" nonsense says that your right to liberty is above the baby"s right to life. In libertarianism LIFE is stated before Liberty, just as it is property.

"Of course the fetus has no choice in being in the mother's womb. Why is that? The answer is: because the fetus isn't alive and only living things can make decisions [5]. The fetus isn't like a prisoner for a number of reasons. The first being that prisoners are held in prisons to be punished. The fetus is not held in the womb as a punishment. The second reason is that the prisoner is held there against their will. The fetus has no will because it is unable to think or feel things so therefore the fetus is not being held their against its will (this is impossible since the fetus has no will). Even if the fetus had will it still wouldn't be a prisoner because when prisoners are released from jail they are free to go back to civilization. If the fetus is taken out of the womb then it will die. The womb is its only place of security and therefore the womb is not like a prison. For this reason my opponent's analogy is flawed. Another point that my opponent's analogy fails to acknowledge is that you actually have to look after the baby once it's born and this can be extremely expensive as my contentions explain."

So what if it"s dependent? Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it? Here"s an analogy like the old guy and the fishing trip;
"The old guy goes fishing; he invites the boy to come aboard, (If it wasn"t rape the mother consented to the fetus being "on board.")
Then the old guy decides "meh--- I don"t want this kid on by boat", so he grabs him and is going to throw him off. (Mother decides she doesn"t want to take care of the kid so decides to have an abortion.)
The boy will die if he is thrown off, hence he is dependent, but he does not want to be on board either, hence he is a hostage.
So he asks the old guy if he can drop him off shore, (continue with the pregnancy) but the old guy is too lazy (to take care of the kid), so he throws him off board.
The old guy comes to shore, tells people about how he killed a kid, then they are horrified and stone him to death."

The moral of the story is; Don"t kill kids.

"Another vital things that I must pick up on is the insufficieny of a rebuttal to my argument in regards to embryotic abortions. I stated that most abortions are done when it is proven for a 100% fact that the embro is not alive (since it is not even at the stage of being a fetus). My opponent responds by saying that it consumes energy, grows and develops and responds to stimuli. It does not respond to stimuli so even by my opponent's definition the embryo is not alive"

A tree is live is it not, does it respond to stimuli, No, but it does feel pain.

"My opponent makes a common misconception with my biological categories of defining life. I understand that there are people that do not meet all of these categories due to a disability or for some other reason. The problem is that my opponent misunderstands the entire purpose of the argument. The argument is used to define whether a group of things is alive not individual things. We aren't going to go around to every single fetus to test if it's alive or not. We're going to analyze the fetus as a whole and decide whether it's alive or not. Therefore, when analyzing humans using this classification system we analyzed humans on a whole not just every individual humans."

See? You still haven"t rebutted my point! The fetus has disabilities that it will grow out of that prevent it from doing these things. Additionally, if you look at humans as a whole, then the fetus is alive because it is part of humanity.

"My opponent's response to illegal abortions is shocking. He deems mother's to be psychopaths because they want abortions and they are denied the right to do so. Until my opponent is able to prove this, then this argument should not work in his favour since it is under my opponent's burden to provide evidence for this assertion."

Right to do so? THIS IS NOT A RIGHT! You have the right to LIFE, Liberty, and Property, none of these is abortion, NONE! In fact abortion is in VOILATION of the first most important one of these- LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

"My opponent drops the rest of my illegal abortions contention by saying that it's a medical issue. This is not true. Having an illegal abortion can result in death but the argument isn't about this alone. It is also about the fact that there is no point in making it illegal if it's going to happen anyway. My opponent completely ignores this part of the argument and only responds to the statement in regards to people dying and being severely injured due to these illegal abortions which is arguably not a medical reason - rather a political related one."

I addressed this, if they want to do it illegally, there will be harsh punishments, this is my recommendation to congress for the punishment for attempted illegal abortion:
500 lashes (after pregnancy)
5 years of prison (while the baby is breastfeeding)
Death by stoning (After the baby is weaned)
WE MUST PURGE THE EVIL FROM AMOUNG OURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"My opponent dismisses the argument in regards to teenagers having children by saying that this harms both the mother and child. This may be true however the criteria set in R1 is that I am not allowed to argue in regards to rape, medical issues or incest. I haven't argued in regards to any of these and therefore voters ought to consider this argument as dropped by my opponent."

No, wait, this fit"s under excuse 1, because if they are teenagers they ae not adult-enough to consent to having the impregnation done to them.

"My opponent completely misunderstands my argument and essentially drops all the philosophy in regards to women's rights. He states that this means that women have the right to kill but you cannot kill what isn't alive. Also my opponent fails to acknowledge that this isn't all about whether or not the fetus is living. It is also about human rights."

I know this is about human rights, I am defending the human right to live, you are attacking it with the imaginary "right to abortion."
famousdebater

Pro

Observations

OV1: Con uses no sources in his rounds which you should note. This means that conflicting notions such as con's claim that the requirements for life are different to the ones I suggested should be ignored. I provided sources and evidence that the requrements for life are not the same as what con claims that they are. I provided sources and evidence my criteria in which I should classify life ought to be bought over con's list of classifications. It is also important to note that con essentially concedes when they provided their classifications for life due to the fact that the fetus does not meet their criteria as well.

OV2: It should be made clear that the BOP is shared in this debate since we both have contradicting objectives to achieve. I must prove that abortion ought to be legalized whereas con must prove that abortions ought to be illegal. We both have positions to affirm and we both have our con's arguments to negate. Since con only brings one argument into this debate that regards to the fetus being alive this means that their position in this debate is severly mitigated.

R3 Rebuttals

Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources.

Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can [1]. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings [2].

I have already stated why the lack of ability to reproduce is a valid reason as to why a group of things (in this case fetus') is a good enough reason to dismiss it as a living thing. Con has dropped this.

I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now.

Con attempted a pre-emptive rebuttal to an argument that I may possibly make; I never made this argument, in fact I agree that the fetus isn't just a clump of cells but this proves nothing for Pro or Con and this argument ought to be thrown out of the debate for this reason.

I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being [5]. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS [4]. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not [4].

Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:

1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].

2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7].

Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abotion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights. By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable.

He asks me a question:

"Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it?"

The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions [8].

Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven.

Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc. [9].

Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human [10].




I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us.

Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion.

Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely.

Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided.

I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again.

Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life.

Sources

[1] http://bbc.in...
[2] http://bit.ly...;
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...;
[5] http://bit.ly...;
[6] http://bit.ly...;
[7] http://bit.ly...;
[8] http://bit.ly...;
[9] http://bit.ly...;
[10] http://bit.ly...;
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Con

"Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources."

No, I established that they fit all of these characteristics, save reproduction, you said that a fetus is not alive because it cannot reproduce. I rebutted this by asking you a very simple question;
"If this is so, doesn"t that mean that children that haven"t reached puberty are not alive?"
You failed 3 times to answer this very simple question. I got my 4 characteristics of life from my Biology class.

"Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings."

Pro is contradicting himself, he says here that children who have not yet reached puberty are alive because they will be able to reproduce in the future. Is this not the same for a fetus? If a fetus is left to develop long enough, won"t it be able to reproduce eventually too?

"I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now."

The difference between "responds to stimuli", and "reacts to stimuli", yes, is very similar, except "responds to stimuli" indicates that the reaction is noticeable. As "respond" indicates that there is a recipient, there is no such recipient in "react."

"I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not."

The issue with this argument is that you are stating that a fetus is only a human after it is born. I stated that the only difference is the extent of development, and what level of development determines you being a human is only an opinion, and cannot be proven. That a fetus"s genetics is human genetics, that a fetus fits all the definitions of life, and that a fetus can feel pain, that can be proven.

"Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:

1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].

2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7].

Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abortion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights."

The government is here to protect people"s rights, born or unborn, when someone wants to violate these rights, not only does the government have the power to stop it, they have the obligation to do so.

"By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable."

For one your framework is anything BUT morally permissible, it is morally insane. Let"s examine Pro"s excuse for abortion, he says that;
"Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."
This is the panicle of ignorance in liberalism, to go to war against biological gender differences, call it "gender inequality", and use it to justify atrocities such as this. Biological gender differences is NOT gender inequality, it is the natural order of things and if you don"t like it, DEAL WITH IT.

"The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions."

So my opponent admits that the fetus is NOT trespassing on the mothers body because it did not choose to be there, and if the fetus is NOT a product of rape then the mother chose for it to be there, and CANNOT change her decision seeing as though the fetus is dependent on her to live now.

"Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven."

Then the boy is asleep, and cannot chose or formulate opinions as he does not know he is on board either. Additionally, if the mother does not want to take care of the child, pawn it off to someone else!

"Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc."

If it has grey matter, it can think.

"Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human."

I could never find out how they do that.

"I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us."

"Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion."

I don"t need to prove that abortion is not a right, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it IS a right, if you cannot then it is established that abortion IS NOT a right.
I also don"t need to prove that Life is a right, it is SELF-EVIDENT, that you are entitled to Life, Liberty, and Property.

"Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely."

I understand this argument, but it is wrong. With things like booze or Marijuana it is better to be legal, because the demand will be higher if it is illegal. But there is a point where this does not apply, a mother that would put herself in danger to have her child be cooked alive by corrosive chemicals, should be punished harshly, so that no one would try it.

"Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided."

In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant.

"I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again."

I"m sorry, your grammar on this paragraph is so bad I can"t understand it, come back later with a fully illustrated point.

"Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life."
In certain instances death penalty is necessary for certain crimes, a fetus has committed no crime. Therefore this is irrelevant.

P.S. How do you post pictures?
famousdebater

Pro

R4 Rebuttals

Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting.

Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children [1].

Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either.

a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli [2].
b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli [3].

He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him.

Human Characteristics

- Consciousness
- Sentience
- Response to stimuli
- Ability to feel emotions
- Excretion
- Independantly supply itself with nutrition
- Indepenantly respire
- Be able to feel and sense things around it

Characteristics that the fetus meets

- Excretion (rarely)

This is it. The fetus, extremely rarely, exretes whilst in this state however if it does excrete this means that it will most likely be severely disabled. Regardless, I'll be kind to con and let them say that the fetus meets this category. Even so, the fetus meets hardly any of the categories and is therefore not a human.

Continuation of R4 Rebuttals

Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence.

Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion.

The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5].

I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone.

Con calls my framework morally insane - more subjectivity with absoloutely no evidence.

He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that "supposedly" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case:

"Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."

Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case.

I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1].

Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions.

Con believes that the embryo can think. I have demonstrated that the fetus cannot think and logically if the fetus cannot think then the embryo cannot either since the embryo is the very first stage of the growth before you reach the fetus and human stages. Embryos are 100% not alive and are 100% not able to think and are 100% not conscious - I could go on [8].

Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words:

"I could never find out how they do that."

This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument.

Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here.

Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions.

Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken.

Con says that my grammar is so bad in the teenagers paragraph. There was 1 spelling mistake. >.<
I said the argument in R1 and it was dropped. That was just a reiteration. Please respond to the argument in R1 not this. That was basically saying that you dropped the argument.


Sources

[1] http://bit.ly...;
[2] http://bit.ly...;
[3] http://bit.ly...;
[4] http://bit.ly...;
[5] http://bit.ly...;
[6] http://to.pbs.org...;
[7] http://bit.ly...;
[8] http://bit.ly...;
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Con

"Con concedes that the fetus does not meet the reproduction requirment of the definition that THEY provided. This is crusical to note because this is a contradiction on their behalf and this should be considered and taken into account when voting."

Yes, this IS very crucial when voting, because I have rebutted this faulty argument 3 TIMES ALREADY, and he STILL pretends as if I didn"t. So yes, take note people, if he cannot rebuttal my point, then vote Con.

"Con states that they got their characteristics of life from their biology class. This is insufficient evidence. I also got mine from my biology class however I managed to source and prove that this classification of life is valid whereas yours has been based off bare assertion. Con continues to make the claim that children that haven't meet puberty is a sufficient rebuttal since I said that the fetus isn't fully developed. Con clearly skims my case because if they had read it properly and thouroughly they would have noticed that I refuted this a number of times. I have clearly said and demonstrated that children are developing humans whereas the fetus is developing to BECOME a human. It is not yet a human whereas a child is. Since the child belongs to the human race this means that it is considered living whereas the fetus does not yet belong to the human race. This means that it is considered separate to humans and is therfore should be assessed separately unlike children."

Let"s break Pro"s argument down shall we? He says here, that children are alive, even though they cannot reproduce yet, but a fetus is not alive for the same reason that he was willing to discredit to say that a child is alive. His rational of this, is that a child belongs to the human race, and overall, humans can reproduce. But he does not consider a fetus to be part of the human race, even though he never offers a real explanation as to why it is not. I on the other hand offered a perfectly reasonable reason why they ARE part of the human race; their genetic is human genetics.
Please note, if Pro argues that a fetus is not a human because it is not alive, this is called a circular argument, and you should vote Con for it.

"Con continues to state that there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and responding to it. To end the confusion I will provide sources to prove that it doesn't react to stimuli and it doesn't respond to it either.

a) The fetus does not respond to stimuli.
b) The fetus doesn't react to stimuli.

He believes that the fetus is human however this is easily disproven, and it has already been done so, nevertheless I will provide more supporting evidence to satisfy him."

This is the testimony of scientists, unless they can get a "pain-o-meter", they cannot say that a fetus cannot feel pain, however, I have the next best thing, the only thing that can detect the pain in a body; the person in that body, and this person can TESTIFY that she DID feel pain in a failed abortion [1].

"Human Characteristics"

"- Consciousness"
Babies are conscious in their mother"s womb [2].

"- Sentience"
This is a synonym as above.

"- Response to stimuli"
Actually, your citations prove that a fetus DOES respond to stimuli, so I will cite YOUR OWN sources [3].

- Ability to feel emotions
You cannot detect emotions so this will have to be discounted.

"- Excretion"
You gave this to me.
"- Independantly supply itself with nutrition"
People on injected nutrition are not humans I guess, you cannot say that it is of the overall humans, then I could say a lizard is a human and it does not fit the characteristics, it applies to the overall human. How do we tell then? Genetics, it has human genetics it"s a human, it doesn"t, it isn"t, a lizard does not have human genetics, a fetus does.

"- Indepenantly respire"

"- Be able to feel and sense things around it"
This is a synonym of 1 and 2.

"Continuation of R4 Rebuttals

Con attempts to refute the libertarian framework extention however this is extremely difficult for them to do given the fact that I provided sources demonstrating libertarian philosohpy and views on abortion whilst my opponent attempts to tackle it without any evidence.

Con, instead of refuting anything that I said makes assertions about what the government has a right to do. This is unfortunately is the subjective and completely arbitrary opinion."

The foundation of libertarianism is the Declaration of Independence, I quoted it and shew how your views are a violation of it.

"The declaration of rights and responsibilities for governments, individuals and societies approes of the UK of a good model and demonstration of a country that properly enforces human rights [4]. The UK advocates and has abortion legal and is a good model of human rights. Ergo, we can conclude that protecting the unborn (ie. fetus') is not a responsibility that the government has [5]."

Good model? You don"t even have the right to bear arms, free speech, privacy (thanks to George Bush we don"t either, but then again George Bush is a relative of the British crown, I think they and their descendants have an issue with human rights), and your taxes are 95%, ours is 55%. So as you can see, the British bill of rights is a TERRIBLE example of how a government should act.

"I'll reiterate this, since con has provided no alternative framework you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone."

Conservativism.

"He does something serious that is NOT acceptable during a debate. He make the following summary of my position and says that I SAY THIS. I did not say this and this make my position look bad. He also puts this in quotation marks to make it took even more like I said this. Con's summary of my position that "supposedly" comes from me, is false and should be penalized with conduct at the very least. I'll refute con's untrue summary of my case:

"Because men do not have to deal with the hormonal issues associated with pregnancy, that women are being treated unequally, therefore we must allow them to commit abortion so they can be equal to men."

Con provides this quotation to go against my case and then refutes it. I will not refute his reubttal to a summary that he made since I never made any of the arguments that con says that I did. I did say that women aren't getting their rights but I made no such comparisons to men. I said that women have the right over their body and can do what they like with it and I provided a number of quotes from philosophers backing up this view. This has very little relation to men and virtually no relation to men not having to deal with hormonal issues as con falsely says when summarising my case.

You said that pregnancy is a state of emotional turmoil, therefore a woman to go through it is unequal. So yes, this is your argument, points to Con for Pro lying.

"I never said that the fetus was trespassing or committing any acts like this on the mother's body. I simply said that it is the mothers choice and it should be assessed by them since it is their body. Yes the fetus is dependant on the mother however the fetus wouldn't know the difference if it was alive or dead [1]."

Pro lies again, vote Con!

"Con's old man analogy is still faulty despite the additions that he has made. Even if the boy is asleep he still wants to live and he still meets the requirements for being a living things as I have continually demonstrated. Therefore, killing the boy isn't justified however aborting the fetus is. Also, the abortion of the fetus is quick and painless (because the fetus cannot feel pain) [1][3]. The boy will have to drown and will almost certainly wake up upon impact of the water and will struggle to get out and will slowly die due to the lack of oxygen. Con's solution is adoption however this is easily refuted. In a year in the US 135,000 adoptions occur, this is due to the lack of willing parents [6]. In a year in the US 1.2 million abortions occur [7]. This means that you're 975,000 parents short. On top of this, you'll probably need even more parents considering that there are other adoptions occuring anyway for reasons other than abortions."

As I remember, there are what " 1 million gay people who want to adopt children, just pawn them off to them, sure they make worse parents, but it"s worse than being dead.

Con concedes that the fetus and embryo are not human by failing to respond to my argument. I clearly layed out the stages and they simply responded with the following words:

"I could never find out how they do that."

This is clearly not a rebuttal and therefore this should be treated as a concession to the argument.

Actually, I was referring to you posting a picture on your argument and I said I could never figure out how they post pictures on an argument.

"Con believes that the burden of proof is on me however I have clearly proven that it is shared. Con is still contradicting themselves. If the BOP really was on me then there was no need to provide initial arguments which he did. Based on this, you ought to assume that the BOP in this debate is shared. Con obviously believes that there argument is self-evident however this doesn't mean that everybody agrees. My opponent believes that I hold the BOP because their position is evident however I clearly disagree and have provided clear reasons as to why the BOP is shared. You ought to presume pro here."

I said that the right to Life, Liberty, and Property is self-evident, if you don"t know it, that"s what happens when you live in a communist country (oh, I"m sorry, a "Socialist" country, it"s a synonym, you use it to make yourselves feel better about living in Commie-land) , you don"t even know what universal rights are anymore.

"Con says that nobody will try illegal abortions. They are wrong in R1 I showed that 13% of all pregnancy related deaths are because of illegal abortions."

I did not say that, I said that we should punish abortion because it cannot be tolerated, as to reduce it.

"Con says that the death penalty is okay in some scenarios but they fail to understand that they just said that life was important and should never be taken."

I said that life is sacred and should only be taken in certain circumstances, including the death penalty, however, a fetus has committed no crime so this does not apply.

[1]. https://www.youtube.com...
[2]. https://www.youtube.com...
[3]. http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...
famousdebater

Pro

I accepted this debate for a good discussion, unfortunately my expectations have not been met. He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate.

R5 Rebuttals

It is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life:

- It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life.
- It was in con's definition of life.
- This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living.

I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being:


These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human:


The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion.

Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words "abortion" and "late term abortion" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here.

Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube.

Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3].

Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4].

He drops independant respiration.

Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con.

I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can.

Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5].

Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6].

Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond.

Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth.

He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework.

He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this.

Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again).

Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none.

Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate.

Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared.

Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment.

Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points.

Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant.

Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro.
Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro.
S&G - Tied
Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro.

This is an objective vote for Pro.

Sources

[1] http://bit.ly...;
[2] http://bit.ly...;
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] Guns in America: A Reader
[6] http://bit.ly...;
[7] http://bit.ly...;
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
donald.keller
I read over this debate... Am fully ready for ours.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 9 months ago
Blade-of-Truth
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Whiteflame// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter puts in a considerable amount of effort analyzing both sides with clear reasoning. However, the voter has awarded Pro the argument points, while his RFD ends by him saying that he votes for Con. After contacting the voter, they have clarified that this was a minor error and voted for the side they intended to. Since the RFD is pretty clear in its intent and the voter still voted for the side intended, this vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
...harrytruman, there's this thing called a link in his RFD, just as there's a link in my RFD. Our full RFDs are posted in those links. You should access those links and take a look at the full RFDs. It's... really not that hard.
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
What are you talking about??????????????????/
This guy doesn't explain ANYTHING! He just says "voter union vote," and posts this as a RFD! Take it down or I talk to Airmax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Voter's Union Vote: https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter spends ample time analyzing specific arguments made by both debaters to come to a clear decision.

Note: So long as the reporter fails to explain why this vote is insufficient, further reports of this vote will be ignored.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: kkjnay// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: When confronted with facts and statistics, Con results to personal attacks on grammar, insults homosexuals and states that "liberals need to grow some brain cells".

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter specifically explains the conduct violation as he sees it, and has discretion to award this point as a result.

Note: While the reporter keeps suggesting problems with this vote, none of them have to do with the vote's sufficiency under the standards. Unless the voter has something to add with regards to the standards and its failure to meet them, further reports of this vote will be ignored.
************************************************************************
Posted by FortisAnimi 9 months ago
FortisAnimi
gg
Posted by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
Thanks whiteflame.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
I'll be working on this, guys.
Posted by Hayd 9 months ago
Hayd
Never make a 5 round debate like this again
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
harrytrumanfamousdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/82069/ This vote was cast on behalf of the voter's union.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 10 months ago
kkjnay
harrytrumanfamousdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: When confronted with facts and statistics, Con results to personal attacks on grammar, insults homosexuals and states that "liberals need to grow some brain cells".
Vote Placed by Balacafa 10 months ago
Balacafa
harrytrumanfamousdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Voter's Union Vote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Mu2fhdcnheK5iA5pNeDshF-QBbH7ersR_vOzzCuK70/edit