The Instigator
kingkd
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Midnight1131
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Resolved: Abortion should be Illegal (Except in life threatening cases)

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...
Midnight1131
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 74187
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

kingkd

Pro

Terms

Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Rules
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Cite all soures
3. No trolling
4. FF is automatic loss
5. Drops are concessions


Round 1 is acceptance, 2 is opening, 3 is rebuttal, 4 is closing
Midnight1131

Con

I accept.

I'd like to propose one change to the rules though. Instead of FF being an automatic loss, I'd prefer that it would just be a loss of the conduct points. Up to my opponent to decide this however.
Debate Round No. 1
kingkd

Pro

Thank you to the Con again

Contention 1: Fetus is a person
http://www.abort73.com......
"Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States"Planned Parenthood"argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1

On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:

We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It"s clearly human in the sense that it"s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life.2"

""It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

"The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.11

The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being" is a matter of objective science. They deplored the "popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.""

So you can see, even the extreme "pro-choice" supporters concede that the fetus is a human. The fetus is a human simply because it is biologivally conceived by two humans and the fetus has its own unique DNA.
http://www.abort73.com......
"A month after fertilization, brain development rapidly speeds up. In just two days time (between day 31 and 33), the brain's size increases by 25 percent. It is estimated that during the course of prenatal development an average of one million neurons (impulse-conducting cells that make up the nervous system) are produced every minute. "
"By the sixth week, the brain emits measurable brain impulses. Primitive brain waves have been recorded as early as six weeks and 2 days. Small bodily movements can be observed at this time, initially affecting the entire body but gradually becoming more specific."
"Pro choice" people may claim that the fetus isn't human as it is not developed completely. However, a baby isn't completely developed compared to a middle aged person, is it not a human? Size and development don't matter, the fetus is a human. THe fetus is an individual, not part of the mother because the fetus has its own DNA and can have different blood type than the mom, no human can function with two different blood types. Mothers don't have 4 arms and 4 legs when they are pregnant.

Contention Two: FLO

http://www.abort73.com......
"Don Marquis, a philosophy professor from Kansas University, wrote an article entitled "Why Abortion is Immoral," published in The Journal of Philosophy, proposing a way to avoid the above difficulties. Instead of basing the morality of abortion on either of the above categories, he suggested that we address abortion within the larger discussion of the ethics of killing. That is, before we make any moral decisions about abortion, we should ask: what makes killing wrong in the first place? According to Marquis, killing is not wrong because it shows the killer to be barbaric nor because it leaves friends and relatives left behind saddened. Rather, killing is wrong primarily because of the effect it has on the victim. Killing deprives the victim of life. The loss of one"s life is the greatest possible loss anyone can suffer. It "deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one"s future." It is not merely changing the biological state of a victim from alive to dead that it is wrong, but the effect of that change on the victim"s future, which forever is taken away. In Marquis" own words: "When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value." His conclusion: what makes killing any adult human being wrong is "the loss of his or her future."

Marquis adds that this explanation for the wrongness of killing should be preferred if it fits with our natural intuitions about killing and if there is no other better explanation. In addition, he finds his explanation to be supported by several considerations: (1) it explains why many regard killing as one of the worst crimes (i.e., killing is regarded as so horrible because of the great loss it causes); (2) it is incompatible with the view that it is only wrong to kill beings that are biologically human (i.e., it would be wrong to kill any being with a valuable future, like aliens and some animals); (3) it does not necessarily entail that euthanasia is wrong (since those who face an incurable future of pain would not lose a future of value); and (4) it accounts for the wrongness of killing newborns and infants (since they indeed have futures of value like adults).

Thus, if the primary reason for the wrongness of killing is that it deprives one of his or her future, then this has obvious implications for abortion. Every normal fetus, just like you or me, has "a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children." Since fetuses have a "future like ours," then it follows that abortion is a serious moral wrong. Thus, it is not the category of "being human" or "being a person" that ultimately makes the moral difference in abortion, but the category of having "future like ours." Just as it would be wrong to arbitrarily kill someone like you or me, since we have valuable futures full of a variety of experiences and enjoyments, it is equally wrong to kill fetuses, because they also have valuable futures. Lastly, under this theory abortion could only be justified if another life (e.g., the life of the mother) was threatened by not aborting."

Basically, killing is wrong because it deprives someone of a Future Like Ours (FLO). If someone is to have a full life with experiences and you kill them. it is wrong because they will never experience a life like we are.
http://www.abort73.com......
"The reason that some people take such offense at comparing abortion to past crimes against humanity is the same reason that the white establishment of America was scandalized when Dr. Martin Luther King compared the abuse of black Americans to the Holocaust. It is easy to condemn crimes that are far away (either by distance or time), it is much harder to condemn them when they sit right in your back yard. Abortion supporters are infuriated at the notion that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust because they incessantly argue that the unborn aren't people. This is exactly the same argument that is always made to justify crimes against humanity. They're not really people. This is what Hitler said. This is what America said when it counted enslaved African-Americans as 3/5 of a person.1 If we can't compare atrocities past to atrocities present, then the term "never again" loses all its meaning."
Conclusion
Banning abortion is not forcing women to give birth, as they chose to have intercourse. It is not choosing a fetus over a mother, as it is the fetuses right to live vs. the right to choose (to kill), and the right to life triumphs as without life you have no freedom to make decisions. Banning abortion is saving lives.

Back to Con!

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
Ronald Reagan
"A person's a person no matter how small"
Dr. Seuss
Midnight1131

Con

I thank my opponent for the last round, since they stated in the opening round that Round 2 is opening, I will save my rebuttals for round 3, and get straight to my own arguments.

Laws against abortions do not stop abortion from happening
Consider the following scenario, a woman wants an abortion, but since abortion is illegal, she can't have one. This isn't true, because she can infact attempt an abortion without the help of people with the necessary skills. If she desperately wants an abortion, she will probably resort to unsafe abortions. Each year, 20 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place each year, and out of these, 67,000 women die due to complications of unsafe abortion. Also, before the 1973 decision to legalizing abortion, there were still 1 million abortions every year, and it had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation.

http://www.who.int...
http://www.thecrimson.com...


Women who are raped should always have the option for abortion
The general stats are that 9000 rape victimes will become pregnant each year. My opponent states that abortion should only be legal if the mother's life is at risk, but my opponent ignores women who were raped. If a woman living in a state where abortion was illegal, was raped, and then became pregnant. She would have two options, try for an unsafe abortion, where the risk to her life is much greater than a proper abortion, or give birth to the child. Let's consider she gives birth to the child, chances are, the child will not experience a happy childhood, given the fact that it was born to a mother who did not want it alive. If the child is given up for adoption, then the child will cost taxpayers much more money than a Medicaid abortion would. An abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy costs around $350 - $400. But providing for a child in an adoption centre for many years would cost much more.

http://www.lifenews.com...


A woman has a right to control over her body
A fetus cannot survive independant of a woman's body during the first trimester of pregnancy, as it is attached by the placenta and the umblicical cord, it's health depends on the health of the mother, and at this point, the fetus cannot be considered as a seperate lifeform. Abortion isn't equivalent to killing a newborn, because the fetus isn't capable of living an independant life. And I know that most people would bring up late term abortions, but there are stats that show 90% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy. And at this point, the fetus isn't capable of living as an independent being.




http://www.cdc.gov...


Right to privacy
A supreme court decision stated that the Right to Privacy, a constitutional human right, extends to the issue of abortion.

The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.


The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
http://www.pbs.org...


I am a bit pressed for time, so I toss the ball back to my opponent to commence round 3, rebuttals.



Debate Round No. 2
kingkd

Pro

Thank you.
Rebuttal

" my opponent ignores women who were raped. If a woman living in a state where abortion was illegal, was raped, and then became pregnant. She would have two options, try for an unsafe abortion, where the risk to her life is much greater than a proper abortion, or give birth to the child. Let's consider she gives birth to the child, chances are, the child will not experience a happy childhood, given the fact that it was born to a mother who did not want it alive. If the child is given up for adoption, then the child will cost taxpayers much more money than a Medicaid abortion would. An abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy costs around $350 - $400. But providing for a child in an adoption centre for many years would cost much more."

The costs are irrelevant to this debate, as money does not justify killing. Rape is only about 1% of all pregnancies, so this exception cannot dictate the norm. However, I will still address this point. I agree that rape is a heinous crime. However, creating more victims by killing an innocent is not the right answer.
Consider a case in which a rape victim gives birth to a son, and after 5 years the mother sees the boy and decides he reminds her too much of the rapist, and she kills him. This is not justified, and neither is abortion.

" the fetus cannot be considered as a seperate lifeform. Abortion isn't equivalent to killing a newborn, because the fetus isn't capable of living an independant life. And I know that most people would bring up late term abortions, but there are stats that show 90% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy. And at this point, the fetus isn't capable of living as an independent being."
OK, the fetus is not completely independent at this point. But it is still very much an ALIVE HUMAN, as I proved with the facts that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens, the species of humanity. Just because it is dependent does not make it any less human. People reliant on life support are not inhuman. Newborns are helpless, but they are human. A fetus is dependent, but is still human.

"If she desperately wants an abortion, she will probably resort to unsafe abortions. Each year, 20 million unsafe abortions are estimated to take place each year, and out of these, 67,000 women die due to complications of unsafe abortion. Also, before the 1973 decision to legalizing abortion, there were still 1 million abortions every year, and it had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation."

This is untrue."One need only look at the frequency of abortion since it was first legalized to see that the legality of abortion plays a huge role in establishing a woman's willingness to choose abortion. The Centers for Disease Control, which has tracked U.S. abortion data since 1969, reports that "[after the] nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching their highest levels in the 1980s."11 In 1970, there were 193,491 legal abortions. In 1973, the first year in which abortion was legal in all 50 states, there were 615,831. By 1981, that number had more than doubled."
http://www.abort73.com...
As you can see, most women would not choose to resort to illegal abortions.

"Dr. Christopher Tietze, then acting as the chief statistician for Planned Parenthood and the Centers for Disease Control, also addressed the exaggerated claim of 5,000 - 10,000 abortion related deaths per year. He wrote in a 1969 edition of Scientific America:

Some 30 years ago it was judged that such deaths (from illegal abortion) might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now. The total number of deaths from all causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000."
"In the year prior to Roe v. Wade (1972), the Centers for Disease Control reports that 39 women died from illegal abortion in the United States and 24 died from legal abortion.9 That is a far cry from 5,000-10,000. The National Abortion Federation maintains that "between 1970 and 1980, legal abortion in the USA is estimated to have prevented 1,500 pregnancy-related deaths."10 But even if those numbers are accurate, legal abortion killed roughly 15 million human beings during that same stretch of time. If you do the math, the number of women "saved" by legal abortion from 1970 to 1980 was 0.0001% of the total number of innocent human beings killed by legal abortion. And at least half of those killed were women."
http://www.abort73.com...

Banning abortion would result in more lives saved, on net. Thirdly, abortion is always dangerous.
http://www.lifenews.com...
"But get this: the average Odds Ratio for these twelve studies is 5.54. That means that the breast cancer risk for Indian women who have had prior abortions is five and a half times that of women who have not. Another way to put it is that you have a 554% increased risk of developing breast cancer if you have had a prior induced abortion. That"s pretty scary, isn"t it?"
http://www.bcpinstitute.org...
According to the Breast Cancer Institute, 53 out of 73 studies find a positive link between abortion and breast cancer. Add this contention to my case, proving dangers of abortion

My Case

Contention 1 stands as all the solid evidence points my way. The fetus is an independent being as it has different DNA than the mother.

Contention 2 stands as life is worth having based on the experiences, so depriving it is wrong.

Constitutive being argument:
P1) If an individual being has a constitutive property at one point in time, then it has that property at every in its existence.

P2) You are the same individual living being or organism as the fetus from which you developed.

P3) You are a human person constitutively.

Therefore vote Pro! Thanks.
Midnight1131

Con

I'll start off with rebuttals from round 2.

First off, the link my opponent provided gives no real arguments against abortion except for one, that the legality of abortion was decided by 7 men who weren't elected officials. But the video forgets to mention that it was a supreme court decision, and there was in fact a vote. The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12]

The state asserted that the gov't had two competing interests, protection the moter's health, and protecting the potentiality of human life. The court states that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe that childbirth, the decision to abort is left to the mother and her physician. And the state can only intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother.

But the one big thing that my opponent fails to mention in the "is a fetus a person" argument, is how this means abortion is wrong. A woman could assert the right to control her body even if the fetus is a person. The fetus itself has no legal claim to use the woman's body. I ask my opponent to provide evidence that the "right to live" supersedes the "right to have control over one's body." When a woman is pregnant, her body is not simply a container for the fetus.

Every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.

John Locke, "The Second Treatise On Civil Government"

Concerning the second contention I'd like to point out to my opponent that his source is extremely unreliable, because it's just a video from a biased website, and it doesn't provide any sources to where it obtains "it's facts." Also, every time my opponent gives a different source, it's just a link to the same video that they provided in earlier links. For this entire contention, my opponent bases their arguments on the presumption that killing is wrong because it deprives someone of "a future like ours." My opponent provides no sources for this, except the same video which has been referenced 3 times at this point. But there is a major law in this, because my opponent provides no real framework as to why depriving someone "a future like ours" is a crime, and how it provides a legal base to make abortion illegal. Then my opponent makes the absurd comparison between abortion to the Holocaust, and American slavery. There is obvious biological proof that African-Americans are in fact people, but there is no real evidence that a fetus is a real person, my opponent claims there is, but provides no credible source.


Now, moving on to rebuttals concerning my opponents arguments from Round 3.

"The costs are irrelevant to this debate, as money does not justify killing. Rape is only about 1% of all pregnancies, so this exception cannot dictate the norm. However, I will still address this point. I agree that rape is a heinous crime. However, creating more victims by killing an innocent is not the right answer.
Consider a case in which a rape victim gives birth to a son, and after 5 years the mother sees the boy and decides he reminds her too much of the rapist, and she kills him. This is not justified, and neither is abortion."

My opponent states that rape only accounts for 1% of all pregnancies, but provides no sources from where they found this information. There is an estimated 32,101 pregnancies resulting from rape each year. My opponent states that this "small" number shouldn't dictate the norm. But, this specific argument is that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy was a result of rape. And 32,101 women having children they want isn't likely going to end well for the child, or the family that has to care for it. My opponent also took the hypothetical case straight from abort73.com, which is the only source they have used up to this point. But my opponent can't possibly believe that a fetus is the same thing as a 5 year old child. A fetus is still dependant on the mother's body for life, and also has no independent will. There is a huge difference between abortion, and killing a 5 year old child.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

OK, the fetus is not completely independent at this point. But it is still very much an ALIVE HUMAN, as I proved with the facts that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens, the species of humanity. Just because it is dependent does not make it any less human. People reliant on life support are not inhuman. Newborns are helpless, but they are human. A fetus is dependent, but is still human.

My opponent actually hasn't provided any facts or sources that the fetus is a human. But this statement here is nonsense. A fetus being a part of the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens isn't relevant AT ALL to this debate. Homo Sapiens is just the taxonomy of the human species. By stating that a "fetus is a part of homo sapiens," my opponent is just stating that a fetus is human, but using different words, and providing no real facts. The difference between a newborn is that it can live [for a certain amount of time] seperate from the mother, and it doesn't have to be attached to the mother 24/7. So, in conclusion, my opponent has not proved that a fetus is a human.

Unsafe Abortions

This is untrue."One need only look at the frequency of abortion since it was first legalized to see that the legality of abortion plays a huge role in establishing a woman's willingness to choose abortion.

My opponent goes on to state how the amount of abortions went up after abortion was legalized. But my opponent fails to connect this to unsafe abortions. There is no denying that the amount of unsafe abortions is decreased in countries where legal and safe abortions are an option. Take the amount of unsafe abortions yearly in the US prior to the legalization of abortion [estimates range from 200,000 to 1.2 million.] However the amount of unsafe abortions in North America is significantly lower than the rest of the world.

http://www.guttmacher.org...


It is much harder to get an abortion in places such as Latin America or Africa, and the abortion laws there are much stricter compared to those in North America. And the percentage of unsafe abortions is significantly higher, in Latin America 95% of the total being unsafe abortions, 97%in Africa, and in North America, less than 0.5%.


Also, as my opponent suggests that abortion would result in more lives saved, but this is wrong. Safe abortions reduce the risk of death caused by abortion to around 0.6%. My opponent also talks about breast cancer, but this is irrelevant, as it's the mothers choice to have an abortion, so she would understand the risks before undertaking the procedure. Also, concerning my opponents "constitutive being argument." My opponent provides no sources as to whether or not any of it should actually be taken seriously by the law. My opponent states "you are the same individual living being as the fetus from which you developed." But my opponent cannot deny that a human being is much different than a fetus, the difference being that a human being can live completely independent of the mother's body, whereas the fetus cannot.

In their rebuttals, my opponent ignores the following arguments I presented in round 2
  • Right to Privacy
  • A Woman's Right to Control Over Her Own Body

My opponent has completely ignored these arguments in their rebuttal.

That is the end of my Round 3 submission.



Debate Round No. 3
kingkd

Pro

Thank you for the good debate.

"But the one big thing that my opponent fails to mention in the "is a fetus a person" argument, is how this means abortion is wrong. A woman could assert the right to control her body even if the fetus is a person. The fetus itself has no legal claim to use the woman's body. I ask my opponent to provide evidence that the "right to live" supersedes the "right to have control over one's body." When a woman is pregnant, her body is not simply a container for the fetus."

Are you serious? The right to life triumphs all. Without life, you don't live. Life is a prerequisite to everything. Compare the rights of life and choice to a cell phone and texting. The right to have a phone is more important, as without a phone you can't text; likewise without life you have no choice. Many choices are limited by government today, mostly choices that harm others such as killing. Being able to kill others is not a choice you should be able to have.

"But there is a major law in this, because my opponent provides no real framework as to why depriving someone "a future like ours" is a crime, and how it provides a legal base to make abortion illegal. Then my opponent makes the absurd comparison between abortion to the Holocaust, and American slavery. There is obvious biological proof that African-Americans are in fact people, but there is no real evidence that a fetus is a real person, my opponent claims there is, but provides no credible source."

Why depriving someone of FLO is a crime? It's not a crime, currently, as abortion is legal. But I argue that it should be because what makes life valuable is the experiences, and depriving someone of them is immoral because that is the purpose of life.


hu
man
in Science
human(hy 'mən)
  1. A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being.

  2. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such asHomo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closelyrelated to modern humans.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain andthe capacity for speech.

So yes, there is scientific proof for a fetus's humanity: being part of Homo Sapiens defines a human. The fetus has human DNA, not a gorilla's.



"The difference between a newborn is that it can live [for a certain amount of time] seperate from the mother, and it doesn't have to be attached to the mother 24/7. So, in conclusion, my opponent has not proved that a fetus is a human."

Dependency does not determine personhood, dependent people on life support are still human.



Illegal Abortions

Yes, some abortions would still happen. But since I proved scientifically and biologically that a fetus is a human, banning abortion reduces the amount of abortions. Legalizing abortion only made the total number of abortions higher. Saving more lives is more important, and abortion has killed 50 million innocents. This is very much true and comparable to the Holocaust in that innocents were killed in cold blood.

"In their rebuttals, my opponent ignores the following arguments I presented in round 2
  • Right to Privacy
  • A Woman's Right to Control Over Her Own Body

My opponent has completely ignored these arguments in their rebuttal."

I mentioned them, but I noted they were outweighed by the right to life. THe government has an obligation to save lives.

"But my opponent can't possibly believe that a fetus is the same thing as a 5 year old child. A fetus is still dependant on the mother's body for life, and also has no independent will. There is a huge difference between abortion, and killing a 5 year old child."

See dependency.


Conclusion

Killing humans is wrong, and the fetus is biologically human. Remember Con's concession that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens, defined as a human, and human is defined as of or relating to person. Con never refutes FLO either. The list of excuses for legalized killing falls short, vote Pro.
Midnight1131

Con

I thank my opponent for this intriguing debate. I will refute their arguments in this final round, sum up my own, and leave it at that.

Are you serious? The right to life triumphs all. Without life, you don't live. Life is a prerequisite to everything. Compare the rights of life and choice to a cell phone and texting. The right to have a phone is more important, as without a phone you can't text; likewise without life you have no choice. Many choices are limited by government today, mostly choices that harm others such as killing. Being able to kill others is not a choice you should be able to have.

My opponent has not provided any real argument as to how the right to life triumphs all. Remember, in this debate, my opponent was to show how the current laws should be changed, and that abortion should be made illegal again. My opponent has failed to show a fetus', a non sentient creature, right to life holds more value than a woman's right to control her own body. Does my opponent really believe that a pregnant woman should have no control over her body, and that she should be forced to carry out a pregnancy? Also, compoaring the rights to life and "choice to a cell phone and texting" is not relevant to this argument at all. The right to control ones body is a basic human right, whereas having a phone isn't even close to being as important. My opponent says, "the right to have a phone is more important than the right to text, because without a phone you can't text, likewise, without life you have no choice." This argument here is not relevat to the debate, there is no logical relation between having a phone, and abortion. But I'd like to remind my opponent, than having a phone does not violate any basic human rights, whereas forcing a woman to carry out childbirth does.

Why depriving someone of FLO is a crime? It's not a crime, currently, as abortion is legal. But I argue that it should be because what makes life valuable is the experiences, and depriving someone of them is immoral because that is the purpose of life.

I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. Simply because something is "immoral" in the eyes of one person, does not mean it can dictate the law.


A member of the primate genus Homo,especially a member of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished from other apes by a large brain and the capacity for speech.

So yes, there is scientific proof for a fetus's humanity: being part of Homo Sapiens defines a human. The fetus has human DNA, not a gorilla's.

My opponent doesn't understand, a fetus is an undeveloped lifeform that has the potential to become a sentient creature. My opponent tries to take this whole debate through a detour of this Homo Sapiens argument, when in reality, it has nothing to do with the debate at all. An undeveloped, unsentient, human being does not have the same rights as a sentient, developed human being that is capable of living independent of any other creature. Also, the "proof" that my opponent gives doesn't make sense. My opponent states that a fetus is a human because it's a "Member of the Homo Sapiens species." But then they go on to say that the Homo Sapiens species is distinguished from other apes by "a large brain and the capacity for speech." Even though a fetus is only a undeveloped human being, it does not have a large brain, nor the capacity for speech. So my opponents entire homo sapiens argument is void.

Dependency does not determine personhood, dependent people on life support are still human.

The difference between a fetus being completely dependent on it's mother is not the same as a person on life support, because the life support machines are not living creatures, and the machines have no rights of their own, such as the right to control ones body. A woman still has the right to control her body, a fetus does not overrule this right. A person on life support has rights of their own, but the machine they are dependent on does not, therefore the machine cannot choose to stop helping the person on life support.

Yes, some abortions would still happen. But since I proved scientifically and biologically that a fetus is a human, banning abortion reduces the amount of abortions. Legalizing abortion only made the total number of abortions higher. Saving more lives is more important, and abortion has killed 50 million innocents. This is very much true and comparable to the Holocaust in that innocents were killed in cold blood.

My opponent has not proved that a fetus is a human, nor that it's "right to life" overrules a woman's right to her body. My opponent's rebuttal avoids the original point I made. Illegal abortions are very unsafe for the mother, and more often then not, end in harm coming to the mother. My opponent tries to appeal to emotion here, by saying that abortion kills, but it does not. It simply ends the possibility for future life, which is very different. My original point with the illegal abortions argument was that there would be more of them if abortion was made illegal, and this would result in more mothers dying, after being "treated" by an unqualified person.

I mentioned them, but I noted they were outweighed by the right to life. THe government has an obligation to save lives.

My opponent has not, in this entire debate, proved that a fetus' right to life actually outweighs the right to privacy, which is a constitutional right, or a woman's right to control over her body. My opponent simply states this as their opinion, with no evidence to back them up. My opponent also never proved that the government's obligation is to save lives. A government's obligation is to govern the nation, abiding by basic human rights, which would be violated if women were forced to carry through with pregnancies, as if they had no control over their bodies.

Remember Con's concession that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens,
This is false, I stated outright that a fetus is an undeveloped homo sapiens, therefore it does not have the same rights as one.

Con never refutes FLO either
My opponent never showed how FLO is enough to legally prove that abortion should be illegal. My opponent entire argument here was an appeal to emotion, as it is not written in any legal document that depriving someone of FLO is an actual crime.

Conclusion
In conclusion, a fetus' right to life does not overweigh a woman's right to control her body. The fetus is completely dependant on the mother, and the mother is not simply a container for the fetus, she has rights of her own. The right to privacy, and a woman's right to control over her body cannot be violated simply for the prospect of future life. Vote Con.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 1 year ago
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
For a clickable link, my RFD is here: http://pastebin.com...
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Con drops the cost argument, when Pro refuted it by outweighing it and making it irrelevant with the lives. Pro wins the person argument with Con concession that fetus=Homo Sapiens, and homo sapiens is a human. Con attempts a refutation by saying that the fetus isn't developed, but as Pro said earlier in the debate, development has nothing to do with person hood, as an old man is more developed than a teen, but it doesn't make him more human.
Rape couldn't go Con because Con never proved that children born of rape are any less human or have worse childhoods than children born of consensual intercourse.
FLO is never addressed by Con, who claims it isn't enough to prove the fetus should be able to live. However, he never attacks the argument itself. The argument is that what makes life important is the experiences you will have, and depriving someone of them is wrong, abortion deprives someone of future experiences and thus is wrong. Con never attacks the reasoning, giving it to pro.
What gives Pro the win is that Con lost the person argument, and Pro proved life is the most important right with the metaphor of having a phone and being able to text; the phone is a prerequisite to texting, without the phone you can't text. Same with life-choice: without life you have no choice, making the former the more important right.This fulfills BOP by proving life is invaluable and FLO.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
In which consisted of health institutes which can be trusted (World Health Organization). It showed how the mortality rate of unsafe abortions were high, and in my opinion, was more trustable. The rest of Con's sources we just blog posts and news articles, but they have the required citation. So to conclude, I have to give the vote to Con, because he provided more sources, and all of them were reliable in my opinion. Pro's sources were reliable too, but since the first one is a little biased, I have to give the edge to Con.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=========================================================
>Reported vote: dsjpk5 // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I found many of Con's arguments unconvincing, irrelevant, and fallacies. For example: 1. Laws against abortion won't stop abortion is not a good argument. Laws against murder don't stop murder, but it doesn't follow we should allow murder. 2. Rape. Con claims that kids born from rape will have bad.childhoods, but offer a no evidence. Warrantless claims are not convincing. 3. Women have a right over their body. This is a fallacious claim. It's the fetus' body. As Con admits later in the debate, the fetus has a different DNA. With this in mind, arguments to Pro.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
[*Reason for removal*] This voter fails to act as a tabula rasa judge and vote based only on arguments made in the debate. As Pro for the proposition and as one arguing for a change to the status quo, Pro has the BoP. This RFD fails to mention a single argument made by Pro that proved the resolution true. It merely lists three of Con's supposed failings. Furthermore, it uses its own analysis to reject many of Con's arguments, relying on arguments not made in the debate. Pro never made the argument that murder is illegal despite the fact that there is imperfect deterrence of murder. Presumably, had Con been given a chance to answer dspk5's argument, Con would have said that murder should be punished on the basis of a retributive theory of justice (that murderers deserve to be in prison) even if deterrence were not a sufficient justification, whereas women who seek abortions do not "deserve" prison time.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
The third fallacy that dspk5 claims Con committed is also not an argument made by Pro. Pro argued that a fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Pro never made the specious (and fallacious) claim made in this RFD that a fetus's right to life means that a woman has *no right* to bodily autonomy. It is faulty reasoning to assert that when rights come into conflict, one person's rights are *eliminated.* Pro argued, rather, than the state should prioritize one entity's rights (the fetsus's right to life) over another entity's rights (the woman's right to bodily autonomy). Pro never said it is the fetus's body, not the woman's body, so there is no right to bodily autonomy at all. I understand that dspk5 is pro-life and would prefer to use his own arguments to reject Con's position, but doing so is not in the nature of "judging a debate." It judges the *position* Con has chosen to take, not the debate itself. The question for a debate is who performed better. Pro's dropping the bodily autonomy argument for an entire round and having poor labeling of his rebuttals might lead some judges to conclude that Con had a better performance in this debate. Tabula rasa judging requires evaluating the performance of the debaters, not their position. And it requires voting on arguments made in the debate, not using outside knowledge or arguments to reject their positions.
=================================================================
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 1 year ago
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
kingkdMidnight1131Tied
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: RFD: http://pastebin.com/S19jhqCZ (in comments, you'll find the clickable link)
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
kingkdMidnight1131Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
kingkdMidnight1131Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did a good job debating, so It was tough for me to decide who did the better job debating. Pro showed how a fetus should still be considered a human, even though it is dependent of the mother. They also showed how the need for unsafe abortions would decrease, if a ban was put forth. Con argued that the right to privacy, and a woman's right to control over her body cannot be violated simply for the prospect of future life. Since everything else were the same, I had to break it down to who had the most reliable sources. Pro's sources consisted of 2 sources, a site that was very Pro-Life, and a website that had statistics showing the rate of breast cancer. The first site was a little biased, but since it has a page that shows where it got its info (some sources were biased) I will accept it. Pro's 2nd source shows statistics, and since it is a study, I will accept this to be a legitimate source. Con however, provided a variety of sources,(RFD IN COMMENTS)