The Instigator
Lordknukle
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal in most circumstances

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 7 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,297 times Debate No: 20022
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

Lordknukle

Pro

This is for Spinko's debate tournament.

Resolved: The practice of abortion ought to be made illegal


Abortion-The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Ought- Should be

Illegal- Outlawed

Most Circumstances- Includes almost every cirumstances except those of rape, incest, and when the female's life is threatened.
THIS DEFINITION WILL NOT BE UP FOR EXPLOITATION

This debate is about the future legality of abortion, therefore all present legal arguments for abortion are currently not valid.

R1: Acceptance
R2: PRO's arguments/CON's arguments/rebuttal
R3: Rebuttals/Defense
R4: Final rebuttals/conclusions

BOP is on me.

Good luck!
jm_notguilty

Con


I apologize for the delay. Thanks for instigating, good luck and happy holidays!

Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments. Now onto mine.

The fetus is a human

My first contention is that a fetus is human. I will choose to focus on a fetus, not a zygote or an embryo because most abortions happen during the fetal period. A fetus is simply the combination of the male sperm, and the women’s ovum. Combining the two creates an entirely unique organism, not alike to its mother or father. There is no doubt that the fetus is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction. (1)

A fetus will, in no doubt, become a human being. There is absolutely no question about it. A fetus will turn into a living, breathing, and thinking organism like you and I. So why deny it the same rights that are given to us? Lets take this for an example: You are a hunter out in the woods. You see something rustle in the bushes. You aren’t sure whether it’s a bear, or a human. Is it worth it to take that shot, knowing that there could be a human there? That directly relates to abortion. Even if you aren’t sure whether the fetus is a human, is it worth it to take that risk? Benefit of the doubt should always be given to life, not death.

One very important point is that the entire biological and scientific communities agree on one common definition for human life: one human individual’s life begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is according to the one of the only embryology textbooks used in medical schools: Langman’s Medical Embryology written by Thomas W. Sadler PhD(2)

Continuing on with the point that a fetus is a human, we have to realize that not only is the fetus being created by the human’s natural processes, it is a unique human individual, just as each of us is. Resulting from the union of the female gamete (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male gamete (which contains 23 chromosomes), the conceptus is a new—although tiny—individual. A fetus has all of the basic components needed for human life, so to kill it with an abortion would be equivalent of killing a human. It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique human individual. In fact according to biology, human development begins with conception.

From the moment of conception, the being is complete. Nothing else — no bits or pieces — will be naturally added from this time until the old man or woman dies — nothing but nutrition and oxygen. This being is programmed from within, moving forward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells. To argue the fact that this is not human goes against any scientific and medical standards, which is what our current society is based upon.(3)

According to Keith Moore in Essentials of Human Embryology:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

To summarize the first contention: I have concluded that a fetus is a living being, is a unique human individual, and is simply a stage of development in the human process.

Abortion is economically harmful
Abortion is, in fact, economically detrimental to society as a whole. Lets look at some stats. Since the legalization of Roe V Wade in the United States, there have been about 50 million abortion. (4) Abortions cost about $350 dollars to the average citizen.(5)

Therefore, over the years that abortion has been legal in the US, the private sector has received 1 750 000 000 000. In other words, one trillion seven-hundred fifty billion dollars. That seems like a large amount, but the amount that the state lost is more. The average US salary is 42 000 per year. (6) The average life expectancy in the US is 78.1 years (7). Abortion was legal from 1973 to current, or 38 years. Since we can assume that every person who wasn't aborted would live to this day, the calculations are relatively simple.

Multiply the number of abortion (50 000 000) by (42 000) the average salary per year and then multiply it by 78, the average life expectancy.

We receive the number 2 100 000 000 000.

That is the amount of money that the State could have gained by not performing abortions. That is considerably larger than the money gained from abortions. Therefore, abortion is a societal economic detriment.

Conclusion

The fetus is a human being

It is immoral to kill innocent human beings

Abortion is economically harmful to a society




(1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

(2) http://books.google.ca...
(3) http://www.abortionfacts.com...
(4)http://www.guttmacher.org...
(5)http://www.positive.org...
(6)http://www.worldsalaries.org...
(7)http://goo.gl...
(8)http://www.nrlc.org...

jm_notguilty

Con

Thanks for responding.

REBUTTAL

Re: Fetus = Human

My opponent first noted that he’ll focus on the fetus because most abortions happen in the fetal period. This is false, since he didn’t give a source, I’d like to point out that 9 in 10 abortions in the US occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy {1a} {1b}. That means that the fetus isn’t fully developed yet {2}, which means that the pregnancy is still in its embryonic period {3a}. An embryo is not (yet) a fetus and it’s also not a person and therefore doesn’t have rights. The embryo is not viable or sentient, it cannot survive outside the uterus/womb {3b} so it would be ridiculous to grant them rights.

As for his argument on fetuses being human, as you can see, all my opponent has argued that a fetus has life and that it will eventually be human, this is insufficient. It needs more concise evidence, PRO needs to prove that a fetus is conscious, that it is sentient and is aware of its surroundings, existence, thoughts, sensations.

But still, this fetus = human argument isn't enough and doesn't entirely mean that we should illegalize abortion. Considering that I’ve shown that the vast majority of abortions occur in the embryonic period, this argument pretty much falls.

Furthermore, PRO must prove that an embryo is still as equal as a fetus or a human being, he also needs to show sufficient proof that it is enough to ban them.

I’m expanding my rebuttal on this in my contentions below.

Re: Abortion: Economical Disadvantage?

My opponent seems to be confusing us with calculations and claims that the USFG could have saved 21 trillion USD if Roe wasn’t decided because 50 million un-aborted people could’ve lived by now and each would have earned an average of $42K.

This is utterly ridiculous and misleading.

Out of those 50 million, how can you say for sure that they didn’t migrate to other countries, or if they even have a decent job, or if they died or have an illness. How can you say for sure that if Roe was overturned by then, this won’t affect 50 million abortions? Women will still abort nevertheless, since they have the means and free will to do whatever they want, regardless of the rule of law. Overall, this argument is a shallow attempt made by PRO which is ambiguous.

Next, abortion costs vary {4}, but it isn’t necessarily $350 since there are private orgs funding women and helping them on family planning. There are clinics that provide cheap abortions for women who are poor. There are also state-funded clinics that operate on these practices. So this just means that the state has some profits. Also, since an average of 1.21 million abortions happen each year {1a} and if we multiply that to the costs ($300 to $1000 approx.) {4}, the total would be over $1B profit. Seriously an economical advantage.

But let’s look at the downside, if we illegalize abortion, back alley abortions will happen anyway. Would you want the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state?


CASE

These are my contentions for now, I reserve the right to drop or add more arguments & references later on.

C1: Morality

This premise actually irrelevant to the topic since this is too broad and controversial. Morality and religion has nothing to do with the legislature and that the government has no obligation to enforce morality to human rights.

Furthermore, my opponent failed to show that killing innocent human beings (in this case, the fetuses) are wrong. It seems he forgot, but nevertheless, I will show you why this is not always the case.

  • Utilitarianism

A simple definition of Utilitarianism is that it determines the moral worth of an action only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences {5}.

Now, a moral philosopher, Judith Thomson offered a thinking experiment {6} {7}: Imagine waking up one morning and find yourself attached to a famous violinist by means of a long tube, that violinist is unconscious. Doctors tell you that if you remove this tube, the Violinist will die. Doctors also tell you that you have to limit your time and you have to eat more. Also, because a parasite-like being is attached to you, you can’t go to work because you cannot concentrate and may suffer from public humility. What if you are poor and you need to work? Is it permissible to kill the violinist? What would most people do? This argument theory proves that even though fetuses/embryos have the right to life, it’s still morally permissible to abort them.

Thomson argued that it is. She says that the right to life does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right.

This moral argument relates to women’s rights and why fetuses shouldn’t have rights. See below.

C2: Fetus Argument

Since the vast majority aborts during the embryonic period, I’m not sure why we need to debate the fetus’ biological form since it has no relevance to the illegalization of this practice, but I’ll proceed anyway. A fetus being human is highly a controversial issue and it will probably never end.

  • Fetus not legally human.

Though a fetus can be described as a human being, a member of the Homo sapiens, it is not a sentient human being that is a full-fledged member of society. It is neither conscious nor viable. Thus making it not have rights and must not receive the same rights as fully developed humans. If we declare abortion murder should we declare miscarriages manslaughter?

Furthermore, as I said, my opponent needs to provide accurate evidence on fetuses having almost the same aspects as fully-developed human being. ‘Having a life and eventually being a human’ is NOT enough.

  • Fetus not really innocent

Addressing the theory presented, J.T stated that even if the embryo/fetus has a right to life, it does NOT have a right to use the pregnant woman's body, so technically, the fetus is not at all innocent as it invades the woman’s privacy and violates women’s rights. Ergo, abortion is permissible in certain circumstances.

C3: Illegalization Downside

I’m running out of characters, so I’ll make this brief and continue next round.

  • Violates Rights

The mother’s right to life is essential, and if we illegalize abortion, we are violating that right. There are many scenarios where the mother’s life is at risk unless she aborts, if we deprive them of aborting, we are not only killing the mother, but also giving society a bad name.

It also violates dignity and respect. Women who are raped should not suffer 9 months of carrying a child she did not want, especially if she is poor. A woman should not suffer or be forced to carry a fetus for months. This is a breach to human dignity. The government has the obligation to protect its citizens from harm, if a doctor knows that the baby is ill in the womb, he should advice the mother for her to make a decision. Criminalization also deprives women on the right to choose and healthcare.

Since I’ve shown that illegalizing abortion violates rights and that it poses a danger to women, this practice should remain legal. Esp. in the circumstances of rape, incest, health risks, medical need, etc.

  • Crime

Before Roe, illegalization didn’t reduce abortions. the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year, this is almost the same as the number of legal abortions now, we can also assume that millions of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion, this process is more dangerous, expensive and of course, unlawful {8}. The NY times also showed statistics that abortion whether legal or not will not change society {9}.


CONCLUSION

In other words, I’ve shown that illegalizing abortion is very much a disadvantage to economy and society and does more harm than good. I’ve negated my opponent’s premises and made my arguments.

I await PRO’s response. Good luck!


CITATIONS

http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Before I proceed, I would like to point out that I made a mistake. Most abortions are in fact performed in the embryonic Period and I will slightly change my argument according to this. This should cause no problem to my opponent as all of his arguments will apply this also.

Fetus=Human

A human is defined as (1):

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.Sapiens


Belonging to a species is determined from the DNA of an organism. From the moment of conception, the new organism is a member of the H.Sapiens species. The organism has all of the human DNA that will ever be used or developed in its lifetime that is neither the mother's nor the father's. My opponent has failed to address perhaps the strongest point of my case, the fact that an embryo has all human DNA that will ever be obtained in its life. If a human is a member of the H.Sapiens, then a embryo is a human.

My opponent has stated that sentience and awareness are necessary for human life. This is obviously not true. By my opponent's theory, a person who is in a coma is not a person, even though he is. Coma patients cannot feel anything outside of them and are unconscious, yet they are still human. This proposition that human life depends on sentience is absurd.

Also, pregnancy is an essential tool in the building of society. It is responsible for the development and growth of mankind. Not only this, but it is also a natural cycle by the human body. To deny something natural and essential to life is unjust.

Consider an alteration of this argument made by Jim Spiegel:(2)

1. Pregnancy is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Abortions which seek to terminate and reject a pregnancy constitute a rejection of the special value of pregnancy.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, abortion is unjust.

My opponent has also asked me to prove that if a embryo were a human, abortion should be banned. This premise is self-explanatory. It is immoral to kill innocent human beings that have done nothing wrong and are coming into existence because of a natural cycle called pregnancy.

Economical Disadvantage

I used average statistics to determine the calculations. Some people people might have had a worse job, some better. Some might have lived longer, others shorter. These are averages. Some people might have migrated to other countries, but there are no concrete statistics. Even if an unlikely 10% migrated, it would still be an economical detriment.

Also, about 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 17 states pay for abortions for some women.(6) This adds on to the detriment. Also, the average abortions costs about $350.(6)



My Opponent's Case

C1:Morality

My opponent is stating the government should have no obligation to enforce morality to human rights. However, the concept of human rights in it self, requires a certain set of morals to recognize them such as not murder, stealing, etc...

Again, my opponent is stating that it is not necessarily immoral to kill millions of innocent human beings. He has the massive BOP to back this up.

C1:Utilitarianism

My opponent has brought a seemingly irrelevant argument into this discussion.

1. The person who randomly woke up with a violinist connected has not been previously aware of any sort of risk that this might happen. It simply happened. But this situation does not happen in a pregnancy. Unless CON can show me a woman who doesn't know that sex might lead to pregnancy, the woman has taken the risk upon herself just by having sex. Whether it be subconsciously or consciously, by knowing the possible circumstances in which the sex might result in, she has subjected herself to the risk. When somebody chooses to be subjected to a risk and the risk happens, the blame should only be on themselves, not the innocent human being inside of them. The only time that this might not happen is in cases of rape but this has been defined as no part of this debate in Round 1.
2. The circumstances of the attached violinist and pregnancy are highly different. Pregnant women can still work, earn a salary, go to school, and our society does not condone embarrassment of pregnant women.

C2: Fetus not legally human

I already partly addressed this argument in the "fetus=human" rebuttal.

What I have to mention is that in Round 1, it was explicitly stated that "This debate is about the future legality of abortion, therefore all present legal arguments for abortion are currently not valid.". My opponent has accepted the definition as this point is not only violating the rules, but also an invalid point as was mentioned in Round 1.

This point should automatically be thrown out, but I will provide a brief rebuttal. My opponent has stated that because an embryo is not conscious, it should not be granted rights. This is false. People in a comatose are given rights are not conscious nor viable.

My opponent stated that I need to " provide accurate evidence on fetuses having almost the same aspects as fully-developed human being". This has already been done. An embryo or a fetus has all the possible DNA that a human can ever obtain in its lifetime. DNA makes an organism part of a specific species. The embryo cannot be described as "can be described as a human being, a member of the Homo sapiens," (by my opponent). The embryo is a member of the H. Sapiens.

C2: Fetus not really innocent


1. By having sex, the women is taking the risk of pregnancy. If the woman allows the sex to happen on her own will, then she is allowing the embryo to be inside her. My opponent also has not stated why the embryo or fetus does not have a right to use the pregnant women's body. If it does not have a right to do this, then all pregnancies should be aborted as it is a violation of the rights of the female.

2. My opponent has stated that abortion is permissible in certain circumstances. I agree. This was addressed in Round 1 rules. In circumstances in which the female is at the risk of dying or has been raped, abortion is permissible.

C3: Violates Right

Again, this has all been addressed in the rules of Round 1. Abortion is permissible in cases of when the women has been raped, incest, or when her life has been threatened. This point is again a violation of the rules and should be disregarded.

C3: Crime

My opponent and I have previously agreed that this debate applies solely to the United States.

My opponent's sources are flawed. If you take a look at his #8 source, it applies to worldwide trends in the legalization/de legalization of abortion. It doesn't mention the US and instead talks about Eastern Europe, Uganda, and South Africa. This source and information is invalid.


In fact, "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the pre legalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year."(3)

Compared to the 1.5 million+ abortions per year after Roe v. Wade,(4) we can conclude that the legalization/de legalization of abortion causes massive differences.


Case:

My opponent has given me a chance to post another small contention:

The Hippocratic Oath

As all abortions today are performed by doctors, all doctors must take the Hippocratic Oath.(5)

It states that:
"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion".

An abortion is clearly a violation of the Hippocratic Oath and cannot be deemed to continue.

Sources:
http://goo.gl...


jm_notguilty

Con

Thanks for responding. I’m sorry for the delay, I’ve been busy with IRL stuffs.

REBUTTAL

Re: Fetus = Human

Again, all my opponent has argued here is that the potential life inside the woman’s womb is part of the species homo sapiens, and that it will evolve and eventually become a human being. But again, is this enough to justify on illegalizing abortion? No. My opponent dismisses my ‘sentience’ argument because it is a failed theory and unnecessary. It isn’t, that’s why embryos/fetuses have no rights in the first place.

I will focus on the sentience and consciousness, which the embryo has not. My opponent states that my theory of the embryo having no sentience relates to a person in a coma. Two things, first, embryos have no legal rights because they are inside the wombs and will only have rights once they are separated from the mother (Embryos are not recognized by law as having rights because personhood is defined by the state). Second, a person in a coma was obviously already born, and with legal rights thus making him a human being.

Let’s take a look at the ‘bear’ scenario my opponent gave in R2; where one man mistakes a person for a bear thus shooting him and killing him accidentally. Now, even though we can say that the benefit of the doubt will go life, we still wouldn’t consider this action to become a killing of an innocent person (i.e.: murder). Why? Because the man thought he was shooting a bear (which can be a danger to him), rather than a real, sentient human.

Relating to abortion, if we outlaw most abortions, and when a woman and her doctor think they're killing a non-viable being, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but it’s hard to judge someone criminally negligent for not personally believing that a pre-sentient embryo is a viable person when we don't actually know this to be the case. There isn’t any sufficient evidence to prove that an embryo is a human being in mind. If we’re following PRO’s logic on embryo being humans, then abortion would be tragic and lethal and should result to murder in all cases, there should be no exceptions, meaning that this will result to many bad consequences.

As for it being just and moral, I will address my opponent’s Spiegel argument and morality rebuttal in my Utilitarianism defense below, but to his statement saying, “To deny something natural and essential to life is unjust.”, If I may ask, dying is something natural and (one might say) essential, should we consider modern medicine unjust too?

Re: Abortion: Economical Disadvantage?

I’ve already addressed this issue and my opponent hasn’t fully accurately backed this claim up. Please extend my previous rebuttal and the arguments regarding the advantage of abortion and the disadvantage of back alley abortions on the economy. Again, having the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state is NEVER a good idea to society and economy.

Re: Hippocratic Oath Violation

4 Issues: All arguments from this source {10}.

1) This oath is obsolete and irrelevant since it is historically taken by physicians. This oath is also invalid since it’s a stretch to even argue it.

2) This oath is not binding by law, there is no law required that forces doctors to take this when performing abortion. So what if they break it?

3) Non-doctors perform abortions too. ‘Nuff said.

4) Quoted oath is false. The quoted statement my opponent cited is from the original version, which has already been modernized. And performing an abortion isn’t stated in it.

ERGO) This argument is false, invalid and irrelevant.

DEFENSE/CASE

De: Morality

My opponent dismisses this argument stating that it is irrelevant and that I have the BOP. But please note that PRO made this argument first (but forgot to put it in R2), so it’s already proven that killing innocent humans can be morally permissible, and that an embryo is NOT a killing of an innocent human being.

Now, to address his rebuttal:

  1. Okay, let’s say that contraceptives failed, thus the woman woke up pregnant. It was the woman’s intention to use birth control and wished not have a life attached her, but it failed. Thus making this Utilitarianism argument very much valid. There are also cases where women are morons, they are promiscuous and do not know the outcomes of having sex, we shouldn’t let the woman and the baby suffer.
  2. Actually no, there are different kinds of pregnancies {11} which can complicate and danger the woman’s everyday life, like Ectopic pregnancies, RH negative diseases, Group B Strep, Gestational Diabetes, etc. These illnesses limit the woman’s ability to do things, work, shop, take care of stuff.

De: Fetus =/= Legal Human

I’ve already proven why a fetus is not a human and that the ‘coma’ argument is blatantly false. I’ve also argued why fetuses shouldn’t receive or be considered human. Extend.

De:Fetus not really innocent

This relates to my morality argument.

De: Violates Rights

OK, I apologize. I haven’t read the definitions accurately. But the ‘rights’ I’m talking about here are not only legal, but moral, universal or God-given rights that are being violated. In a Utilitarianist view, we need to consider on what is morally permissible and we must consider what the best interest of the mother and child is.

Right to choose & to have dignity: Women should have the right to be respected by society, if they do not want children that should be respected. Again, there are cases where birth control fails, where women do not know the outcomes of having children. Most of these women are mostly in poverty where they couldn’t economically handle having a child. {12}.

Mothers are responsible for their children, we need to value their right on what they think is safer and right for their children and environment. Do you want children to live in the streets, to suffer and live with abusive parents?

De: Crime

Yes, this is a US-only debate. I’m introducing the NYT source as pattern evidence. My opponent counters this argument by citing a source from a book, thus must be considered unreliable, I don’t normally attack sources that way but it’s crucial to what we’re arguing.

Now, to further clarify abortion=crime correlation; I will quote what I said in the previous round;

Before Roe, illegalization didn’t reduce abortions. the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year, this is almost the same as the number of legal abortions now, we can also assume that millions of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion, this process is more dangerous, expensive and of course, unlawful {9}.

That source also states that and I quote, “Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.”

Now, obviously, illegalizations have no effect due to that source, also this that statement wasn’t accurately refuted by PRO. About my NYT source, please note that the WHO did a research (in countries where abortion is illegal) where they found out that 20 million unsafe abortions are performed per year & 67K of those women die, and between 2 -7 million of these risky abortions result in long-term damage or illnesses. This is only a pattern or what might happen to the US if we illegalize abortion due to back-alley abortion {8}.

My opponent needs to prove that illegalizing is more beneficial to society regardless of back-alley abortions where criminals profit more than the state, where mothers have more health risks and are endangered.

CITATIONS

http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Pro

C1:Fetus=Human

My opponent dismisses my argument that the fetus/embryo is part of the H. Sapiens species without any valid justification. Also, my opponent has dropped one of my most important points which is that the fetus/embryo has all the human DNA that will ever be developed in its lifetime. Biologically speaking, the embryo is not a potential human life, it is a human life. Coupled with the facts that is it from the H.Sapiens species and has all human DNA, there is no valid justification for not considering the embryo to be a human being.

My opponent tries to dismiss my "coma argument" by saying that a person in a coma already already has legal rights and is not inside the womb and therefore should not have rights.
  • Legal Rights

The argument is moot and invalid from Round 1. Current legality is not of a matter of concern in this debate. Therefore the fact that the person in the coma already had legal rights is dismissed.

  • Not inside the womb and therefore should not have rights

I quote from my opponent:
"embryos have no legal rights because they are inside the wombs and will only have rights once they are separated from the mother (Embryos are not recognized by law as having rights because person hood is defined by the state)"

The second part of the argument can be dismissed. How the State currently defines person hood is irrelevant.

My opponent states that there is a distinct differentiation between supposed rights of a human being outside the womb and inside the womb. First of all, he has not provided any valid justification for why the human being inside the womb should have less rights than the human being outside the womb. Second, if being inside/outside the womb makes so much difference, then what is the difference between a fetus ten minutes before birth and immediately after birth? Except for the surrounding environment, there are absolutely no differences between these two circumstances. This point of my opponent is therefore refuted.

C1: Bear Scenario

It seems as if my opponent has misunderstood the bear scenario. First of all, the point isn't whether or not the person who shot the gun was doing it accidentally. The point is that it is not worth it to take the risk when there could be a real human being behind the bushes. The man did not think that he was shooting a bear. He knew that it could have been a bear or a human, a 50/50 chance.
Whether or not society condemns him is irrelevant.


C1: Spiegel's Argument

My opponent has virtually dropped this point and he untruthfully proclaims that he will rebut it in the morality segment. His only defense was "dying is something natural and (one might say) essential, should we consider modern medicine unjust too?". Death is natural, but that whole argument also hinges on pregnancy having special social value and being the precondition to society. Death does not have any special social value. In fact, if everybody was immortal, and therefore without death, society would be able to function. But without pregnancy, the precondition for society in our world, we would all die out. My point is that even though death is natural, it is not the indispensable means by which society is created nor does it have any special social value.

C2: Economical Disadvantage

My opponent has done literally nothing here nor in the previous round to rebut my points. I have shown them to be valid under average statistics. I have also left out the fact that many abortion are taxpayer funded which adds to the economic societal detriment.
He states that "Again, having the black market and criminals profit more than the private sector/state is NEVER a good idea to society and economy." However, he has nothing to back up his assumption. Black market profits are still economically beneficial as the provider obtains money which he can spend on various societal goods. The people who illegally performed the abortions still spent the money back to society.


C3: Hippocratic Oath

I will address each of my opponent's concerns:

1) This oath is not historically taken by physicians; it is still taken by physicians. This also an appeal to novelty. Just because something is old, does not make it any less valid.
2) This oath focuses on morality, instead of binding legality. Not only does this debate have nothing to do with current legality, but just because something is not binding, does not make it any less valid.
3) False. In the US, only physicians can perform abortions. (8)
4) False. According to the National Library of Medicine, that is the original oath. (9)

C4: Morality

Just because I did not put it in Round 2, does not mean that I concede that killing innocent human beings is acceptable. Not only is this common logic, but also backed up by my Round 3 rebuttal.

My opponent has provided two examples of when he thinks that my case would fall apart due to technicalities. I will rebut both of them.

  1. It is highly unlikely that both birth control and physical contraceptives would fail when used together. Anyways, it is possible. My opponent has completely neglected the part where I previously said that by engaging in the act of coitus, the participants are automatically taking up a risk. Contraceptives might reduce the risk, but they don't eliminate them. Whether sub-consciously or consciously, the risk has already been taken and the blame is put on the people engaging in the act of coitus. To put the blame on the baby is absurd and illogical.
  2. When a woman's life is threatened, abortion is permissible, as stated by our rules. Also, even if the woman's life is not threatened but she is somewhat temporarily disabled, the killing of the baby is not justified simply because of a temporary "disability. Would it be justified to kill your child if he would not let you go to work? No.

C5: Fetus =/= Legal Human

Again, the term legal is irrelevant to this debate.
You have definitely not proven that the coma argument is invalid. Readers can refer back to "Fetus=Human".

C6: Fetus not really innocent

Refuted as part of Utilitarianism last round and Morality this round.

C7: Violates Rights

My opponent mentions "moral, universal or God-given rights". He has introduced these so called "rights" without any proof of them even existing. My opponent's introduction and statement of these so called "rights" absurd and rendered moot.

Right to choose and to have dignity- Nobody is forcing women to have children. If they really don't want to then they can abstain from having coitus. Just because birth control fails, it does not automatically give the women the right to abort. As previously discussed, a certain level of risk is accepted simply by engaging in coitus.
Just because someone cannot economically handle a child, does not give them the right to kill it. Many different approaches can be taken such as adoption. Also, having lived is better than never having lived.


C8: Crime


My opponent's evidence is not based in the US and therefore is nullified and moot. There is no proof that these patterns would have been replicated in the US. I provided a source which stated otherwise, but apparently my opponent automatically thinks that a book source is invalid with no justification whatsoever.

Also, President of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." It seems that the vast majority of the alleged “back-alley butchers” eventually became the “reproductive health providers” of our present day.(7)

Conclusion

  • Embryo is a human.
  • Immoral to kill humans.
  • Abortion is an economical detriment.
  • Women do not have a right to abortion.
  • By having coitus, they are exposing themselves to the risk.


I hope that my opponent does not introduce any new information or sources in the next round.



Sources:

http://goo.gl...



Great debate.

Vote PRO

jm_notguilty

Con

I apologize, but I have to concede this debate due to IRL issues and since 3 hours is insufficient to create an adequate rebuttal.

Vote PRO. LK, it was fun. I hope we have a rematch on this topic someday or some other topic. Good luck on the next phase of the tourney.

Again, I apologize for wasting everyone's time.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Having reviewed the debate (I initially voted on the concession alone), I believe my vote would have been for Pro anyway. Pro's argument for the definition of life received only light stabs from Con. This is obviously the crux of abortion debates and Con's decision to just throw the sentience/awareness contention at Pro and call it a day baffles me.

There is a winning case somewhere in Con's rounds, it simply isn't developed. Pro mistake concerning the time frame of most abortions should have put him in an untenable position. After all, he stated the importance of a fetus meeting the criterion for life, only to have to abandon this stance entirely for an argument on human DNA. This is a much weaker position which Con completely ignored. In fact, the only relevant points in the entire debate were on the definition of life and the various rights associated with it. On these points, only Pro presented a coherent case.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Yeah, lol that's what I thought when I saw it.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Battle of the Rick Santorum avatars :)
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
@$%& just realized I forgot a point....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't justify his refutation of Pro's claims, and conceded the last round.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Concession. Knuckle probably would have won any was though.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
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: Close and high-quality debate. Con shouldn't conceed. Right to the end, however, pro didn't manage to disprove con's moral uncertainties surrounding abortion. Declaring any of con's arguments "moot" in the final round is also a bad idea. Sorry, con, but my obligations as a voter are to name you the winner.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
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: Why concede Con? Just type up a very brief and quick final round and let to voters decide who won. Never concede after already carrying out several quality rounds...
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
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: Concession. Also, knukle was winning.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
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: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Lordknuklejm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: JM won, but was forced to concede in the last round. Thus, I vote for a tie.