Should Abortion remain legal?
My Stance: Abortion should only be permissible if the mother's life is in danger.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: ArgumentS
Round 3-4: Rebuttals
Abortion - The intentional killing of a fetus.
Legal - Lawful; Permitted by law
I accept the debate. To clarify, I will be arguing that abortion should remain legal. Thus my opponent will be arguing that abortion should not remain legal, and should be therefore made illegal. I look forward to the ideas presented, look forward to your arguments Con!
(Round 4: Counter-Rebuttals/Defend Case)
In order for abortion to be considered wrong, several premises must be proven:
Conclusion: Abortion is wrong and should be made illegal.
Premises one and two are undisputed as they are either a dictionary definition or a definition that my opponent and I agreed upon. I will go into more detail with the other premises.
My first argument is that a fetus is the result of two human parents through sexual intercourse. The fetus or unborn baby has very alike DNA to his/her parents. If the unborn baby is not human, then the question is, what is it then? The difference between the unborn baby and its fully grown self can be broken down into several categories: size, development, environment, and level of dependency. Other than these factors, there are no significant differences between the unborn baby and you and me. Are midgets and infants less human than Yao Ming? Are children and teenagers less human because their brains haven’t fully developed? Does place affect my humanity? Like unborn babies, one year old infants left to their own devices won’t live very long. 
Even science acknowledges that fetuses are human beings. Even pro-abortion advocates like the New Scientist acknowledge that the fetus is a human being:
“The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.” 
Here is another example from a medical embryology textbook:
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” 
So in conclusion, science confirms that an unborn baby is a human being. Therefore, he/she is a human being without imposing outside, quasi-religious concepts such as “personhood”.
The second half of that premise states that the fetus is innocent. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the fetus isn’t innocent because as the saying goes, “Innocent until proven guilty”.
Not really much to say. Any civil society believes that murder is wrong. Unless you want to debate on whether murder is objectively wrong, then I rest my point here. Also the US federal government has a law pertaining to murder:
“(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” 
The legality of abortion is determined by state law. Because the premise that the unborn child is a human being has been proven, they are protected under this federal law. This would mean that state abortion laws contradict the federal law. And according to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws. Therefore, the state laws that legalize abortion should be abolished.
2. 189(2543):8–9, 18 March 2006 --- New Scientist
3. Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
Again thank you NothingSpecial99 for creating this debate, I look forward to discussing this controversial topic. I will be explaining why abortion should remain legal.
The reason behind making abortions illegal would be to stop abortion procedures (as it would be presumed that abortion is “bad”), yet research has shown it won’t deter this at all.
Experts found that making abortion legal or illegal had no effect on the amount of abortions that took place.  In other words, making abortion illegal will not stop the amount of abortions that take place, and will not be “saving fetus’s lives”. What it will do is take the mothers’ lives.
Since illegal abortions will only result in mothers having to get abortions from unsafe illegal sources (thus term “back-alley”), the mother’s life and overall well being is put at risk.
The World Health Organization (WHO) found that around 68,000 women die every year from “back-alley” abortions, and between 2 million and 7 million women receive long-term damage such as; incomplete abortion, infections, haemorrhages, injury to the internal organs, and puncturing or tearing of the uterus. 
And the amount of women who get abortions is significant, according to Guttmacher Institute, 21% of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion, and that 3 in 10 women will have an abortion by age 45 .
Even if my opponent can prove that abortion is morally wrong, this has no impact as illegalizing abortion will not stop this problem in any way, shape or form, it will only make things worse.
If we care about the lives and wellbeing of women in this country, we need to legalize abortion.
Denying women the right to have abortion will entail many economic and social woes.
“After documenting the experiences of the women who seek to terminate a pregnancy but are turned away from abortion services, the UCSF researchers found that those women were three times more likely than the women who successfully obtained abortions to fall below the poverty line within the subsequent two years.” 
Denying women abortions comes with other side effects as well.
"A year later, [the women who were denied an abortion] were far more likely to be on public assistance — 76 percent of the turnaways were on the dole, as opposed to 44 percent of those who got abortions. 67 percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line (vs. 56 percent of the women who got abortions), and only 48 percent had a full time job (vs. 58 percent of the women who got abortions). When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line. Another conclusion we could draw is that denying women abortions places more burden on the state because of these new mothers’ increased reliance on public assistance programs." 
The bottom line is that denying abortions leads to all sorts of economic woes, it's important to remember that this does not only apply to the mother, but the unaborted children as well.
Women who want to get abortions do not want to have a child, either because they are not ready yet, they don’t have the money, don’t have the adequate resources, or don’t want to take on the responsibility of taking care of another human being. When mothers are denied abortions, they are forced to raise this child when they were not ready, did not have the money, didn’t have the adequate resources, or the responsibility. As a result, of being raised in bad conditions the child is more likely to be dependant on the welfare system; consuming a large amount of society’s resources. The child is more likely to commit crime, deal drugs, be unemployed (not contribute to society, etc. In the end, the child will be harmful to society and the economy. If we are to abolish abortion, we must be prepared to face the societal and economic woes that will come as a result.
The Right to Choose
The choice over whether to have children is essential to a woman's independence and ability to determine her own future.
The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.
This is a right that is protected by the Constitution, and defended in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”
(Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the 1992 decision.)
So if laws against murder were ineffective in preventing murders than it is logical to remove such laws. All abortions are "unsafe" in the sense that all result in a dead baby. If an unborn baby is just as human as a two-year old child, you are arguing that we need to make it safe for mothers to kill her own children otherwise she"ll do it unsafely putting her own health at risk. When you argue that keeping abortion illegal is meant for the well-being of women, what about the well-being of the unborn women? Don"t their lives also matter?
According to the WHO study you cite, most of these "unsafe" abortions are in developing countries where sufficient medical care is lacking . Maybe instead of providing these developing countries abortion clinics, we can provide alternatives like adoption or fund charities that support these women and their children.
(Note: When I tried checking your first link, it brought me to an error page. Maybe you can fix that in the next round)
A study on 186 women can"t be used to generalize the thousands of women in this country that are denied abortions. The study also didn"t record the conditions of those that would for example, wanted an abortion but changed her mind and supported by third parties. The comparison between the women who did receive abortions to those who were denied can"t be considered a true comparison as the group of women who received abortions are 791 women which is 425% larger than the group that was turned away.  For a good study, both groups must be equal in size. If you are trying to indicate that abortion is a better choice for pregnant women economically or socially, this study doesn"t indicate anything.
For women who are pregnant that can"t support such child, there are other options. Adoption is an option. There are various charities and service that can help these women if they decide to keep their children. In the end, if they cannot truly support the children, then they shouldn"t have consented to sex in which the natural consequence is that of a pregnancy. You claim that because the children are more likely to be hindrances to society becoming criminals so you imply that children should be preemptively sentenced with death to prevent such crimes. What happened to punishment after the crime?
In addition, on what grounds is it not permissible for a woman to abort her child? Should women be allowed to abort their children based on the gender of the baby leading to the massive imbalance of boys to girls in countries like China? 
The Right to Choose:
First off, the right to an abortion is not an explicitly stated right in the Constitution such as the freedom of speech or the right to a lawyer, but rather a right that was interpreted. The Due Process clause in the 15th Amendment states that no one should be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." was used in justifying abortion but what about the unborn baby. Was its life deprived with due process of law? The right to privacy is implied from the Bill of Rights such as privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment) among others such as privacy against quartering soldiers (3rd Amendment). However, in the case of a pregnant mother, there is another life at stake. The right to privacy taking precedence over the right to life was the premise of slavery as it was argued during the day that slaves are a white man"s "property" as an unborn child is a woman"s "property", therefore you have no right to be concerned for the well-being of the "property".
The Supreme Court has been known to overturn their own decisions changing its interpretation of the Constitution like "separate but equal" as ruled in Plessy vs. Ferguson as constitutional overturned in Brown vs. Board of Ed.
Con presents one logical argument for his case (logical argument means premises then conclusion), I will therefore break this down and explain how it is wrong.
First off, here’s the argument. (P=Premise, C=Conclusion)
P1) Murder is the intentional malicious killing of an innocent human being.
P2) Abortion is the intentional killing of fetus.
P3) A fetus is an innocent human being.
P4) Murdering innocent human beings is wrong and forbidden by US federal law.
C1) Abortion is wrong and should be made illegal.
The first premise of the argument is a definition for murder. Con defends this by saying,
“Premises one and two are undisputed as they are either a dictionary definition or a definition that my opponent and I agreed upon.”
The only two definitions that Con provided was of abortion, and legal/lawful. Con did not provide any definition for murder, so we never agreed upon this definition.
Con also says they are a dictionary definition, yet fails to cite a dictionary. So I looked at the five most popular definitions and none of them match up with Con’s definition.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another 
the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. 
the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law… 
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought 
The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference 
The same recurring meaning occurs; breaking the law by killing someone. Abortion would not then be considered murder for it is legal, and therefore not against the law.
There is no disputing this as it was defined in R1 and is the meaning of abortion.
Con backs this by showing that fetus have human DNA (combination of parents’ DNA) and therefore human.
The problem with this perspective would then be that sperm are then humans.
Between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm are released in single ejaculation . All of these sperm die except for one to reach the egg. Now according to Con’s justification for fetus being human, sperm cells would also be human, and millions upon billions of them are killed every ejaculation. This would mean that millions of innocent humans are killed every ejaculation, all the time.
If we were to follow Con’s perspective, we would have to make it illegal to ejaculate, which is not realistic nor possible.
If Con is to use this justification for outlawing abortion, he must also outlaw sex.
Con then directly challenges me,
“The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the fetus isn’t innocent because as the saying goes, ‘Innocent until proven guilty’.”
I’m not sure what Con intends the impact of this to be. I assume since he mentions “innocent until proven guilty”, he means that fetus need to be proven guilty before they can be killed.
1) Fetus aren’t citizens of the United States, as they have to be born here to become citizens (and they haven’t been born yet).
2) Con does not explain why being innocent would matter, yet mentions it in this contention, which means it has no impact in this contention.
3) Con does not explain why I need to prove that a fetus isn’t innocent.
This premise is fact and there is no argument here, the only claim made is that murder is wrong. Which is an assumption that I could dispute, but for sake of keeping on track, I will not argue it.
Con attempts to argue that abortion should be illegal through definition connections, which hinge on the definitions being accurate, and they aren’t. Without this essential foundation, the argument as well as all premises fall apart. I still unnecessarily explained why the other arguable premises were false as well, and therefore the argument is negated.
In this round, I will defend my case by defending the premises that Pro has disputed.
I'll admit, I messed up with definitions. However, this premise can still hold up. The key word in all of Pro's definitions is the word, "unlawful". Unlawful is defined as:
Killing an innocent person is contrary to US law. And the law I am refering to is the "supreme law of the land", the US Constitution, which in the 14th and 15th Amendments states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
"due process of law" is one of the many promises for people to be protected under the Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.........". Have any murder victims been sentenced to death by the means in which they are murdered? No  
Another relevant right is the 6th Amendment which gives the accused the right to a speedy, public trial. Have murder victims been given a public and speedy trial before their death? No 
Both of these amendments strongly imply that the accused are innocent until judged otherwise by trial so innocence indirectly applied to the definitions. I have proven that killing innocent people is unlawful so my first premise still holds up.
Conclusion: Abortion can still be considered murder as the procedure deprives the unborn baby of life without due process of law.
Pro hasn't disputed that the fetus is a human being but rather stating that sperm cells are equivalent to a fetus, therefore a human being and that their deaths in the billions after sex should be made illegal using my logic which is impossible. However, whether their death occurs after death or in the testicles unejaculated, their deaths are not intentional, therefore not murder.
Pro has ignored the fact that embryologists and even pro-abortion science sources recognize the fetus as a human being. The sperm analogy is not sound because sperms alone don't develop like human fetuses. Put a sperm cell in an environmnet where it can survive 9 months or even indefinaly and it will not become anything other than a sperm cell. Further more, the DNA of the fetus from the moment of conception is the combination of its mother's and father's DNA making the genetic code of the fetus different from its parents, therefore an independent human being.
The fetuses aren't citizens argument doesn't work because rights like the 5th, 14th, and 15th Amendments still applies regardless of citizenship as aliens or noncitizens like immigrants before they are naturalized have these rights. 
The innocence of the fetus matters because if it is innocent and the abortion is the intentional killing of the fetus, then it falls under the definition of murder and murder is outlawed by the United States of America. Because Pro hasn't said anything disputing the innocence of the fetus, the premise stands.
I have proven that my premises still hold, therefore my original conclusion that the laws allowing abortion
contradicts federal anti-murder laws of the United States also holds.
I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate on such a controversal topic.
I will now defend my initial arguments in R2 from Con’s rebuttals.
Con starts off by giving an example of what should be done based on my logic.
“So if laws against murder were ineffective in preventing murders than it is logical to remove such laws.”
If a law against murder was doing nothing to stop the amount of murders, and only making more people die as a result of it, of course it should be removed. Any effort to improve society, and in this case by saving lives, should be taken.
Con then says that my argument focuses on the well-being of the mother, and not the well-being of the child. Asking doesn’t the fetus’s life matter?
I don’t see why the fetus’s life should matter, Con does not give me a reason. But I will still answer the question. No, it does not. The fetus has not contributed to society yet, has not been out in the world yet, has not been enveloped culture yet, the fetus is in the pre-stages of becoming something, but has not become that something yet. In other words, the fetus’s life does not matter because it has not done anything of worth yet except feed off it’s mother’s nutrients.
Next Con questions my source, pointing out that it only mentions developing countries, of which medical care is lacking. And thankfully this exactly the point I was trying to make: when abortions are made illegal sufficient medical abortion care will be lacking in the US, and as a result abortion procedures will be extremely dangerous.
Con then suggests alternatives such as adoption or charities that do adoptions. Around 1.2 million abortions were done in 2008 , assuming this number hasn’t increased or decreased, thats around 1.2 million more children going into an already broken foster care system, in which children are treated terribly . Flooding an already overcrowded and broken foster care/adoption system  would cause even more problems than what we started with.
(Fixed link http://tinyurl.com...)
First Con says that the study I cited was not valid.
“A study on 186 women can"t be used to generalize the thousands of women in this country that are denied abortions.”
I think my opponent may have misread the study,
“The Turnaway Study is ANSIRH’s prospective longitudinal study examining the effects of unintended pregnancy on women’s lives. The major aim of the study is to describe the mental health, physical health, and socioeconomic consequences of receiving an abortion compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. From 2008 to 2010, we collaborated with 30 abortion facilities around the country—from Maine to Washington, Texas to Minnesota—to recruit over 1,000 women who sought abortions, some who received abortions because they presented for care under the gestational limit of the clinic and some who were “turned away” and carried to term because they were past the gestational limit.” 
Con then mistakes the study again,
The comparison between the women who did receive abortions to those who were denied can"t be considered a true comparison as the group of women who received abortions are 791 women which is 425% larger than the group that was turned away. For a good study, both groups must be equal in size.
I think you are referring to the result of the study, for that would be finding out how many were denied or not denied abortions. And a result cannot be unfair, only the factors leading to the result. (I’m guessing Con did not know this was the results.)
Con then mentions that adoption is an option, which I already talked about. After that Con says that they should have never consented to sex in the first place and they now have to bear the consequences. Sex is a part of our culture, an essential part of our society. People have sex in order to pursue their happiness and express love,
“You claim that because the children are more likely to be hindrances to society becoming criminals so you imply that children should be preemptively sentenced with death to prevent such crimes. What happened to punishment after the crime?”
They are not being punished for anything, merely preventing crime. Con has not negated the fact that non-aborted children will harm society, so that fact still stands.
Con then asks me,
“Should women be allowed to abort their children based on the gender of the baby leading to the massive imbalance of boys to girls in countries like China?”
I don’t see the relevance to my argument here, or to the debate. I answer no…
Right to Choose
It was hard to decipher exactly what Con’s rebuttal to this was. But I think it ran something along the lines of this.
1) It does not explicitly say that citizens have the right to an abortion, rather only interpreted.
Does this make it any less constitutional? The founding fathers left things vague, and up to interpretation on purpose. 
2) 15th Amendment states that no one should be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” but the unborn baby is deprived of life without due process of law.
Due process of law. The unborn child is not protected by law, and therefore can be deprived of it.
3) The Supreme Court could be wrong.
the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection. 
personhood=the quality or condition of being an individual person.
An unborn child is not separate from its mother physically or mentally. A child’s survival is fully dependant on the mother until around the 24th week. Even after that, the child has a low chance of survival, only after it is born, and can survive individually on its own, can it be considered in personhood and protected by the constitution.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|