The Instigator
Actionsspeak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should abortion be legalized under all 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 3 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 53771
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Actionsspeak

Pro

(Note to daytonanerd: Just to clarify, this is a WC debate between me and TN05. I only state this due to the unlikely chance that me and TN05 debate again and it has no association with the WC.) [1]

The opening round is acceptance and/or stating your position on this topic.

Source:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
TN05

Con

I accept this debate. I will be arguing that abortion should not be legalized in all circumstances, and that either complete or partial bans on abortions are appropriate.
Debate Round No. 1
Actionsspeak

Pro

A. Positive benefits hindered when abortion is banned

Population growth has experienced exponential growth that cannot be maintained[1] [2] due to health advances,[3] [4] quality and accessability of water, [5] [6] (link 6 is interested and very detailed I reccomend viewing the table on page 22) and intelligence about nutrition. [7] [8] All of these lead to effects aid human health and well-being you may wonder how these could more be damaging to society when abortion is illegal, the answer it simple all of these have effects that lead to overpopulation, which could be fought against by means of abortion since abortion lowers the amount of births in a society.

B. The consequences of overpopulation

Overpopulation leads to many environmentally devastating things such as overuse of net primary production by up to 30,000% in some large cities[9], more land used for energy,[10] more land used for food,[11] overfishing,[12] overharvesting,[13] and less land available for endemic species.[14] This loss of land for endemic species harms biodiversity, which could otherwise be used for medical research and to aid world hunger. [15] [16]

C. Bans aren't appropiate, because abortiong is a women's right

The one option of a women who doesn't wish to have a baby once pregnant is abortion, an extensive study has shown that every year 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions. [17] Women deserve the fundamental human right to a medical procedure performed on their body in which the fetus derives resources from [18] [19] [20] that is much safer option than performing an unsafe abortion that may lead to their death, on average 214 women die each day due to an unsafe abortion. [17]

Sources:
[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://www.learner.org...
[3] http://www.sphtc.org...
[4] http://www.cdc.gov...
[5] http://dec.alaska.gov...
[6] http://www.mtu.edu...
[7] http://www.nutritionmd.org...
[8] http://www.nutritionalresearch.org...
[9] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
[10] http://www.ecoleaf.com...
[11] http://dirt.asla.org...
[12] http://worldwildlife.org...
[13] https://www.boundless.com...
[14] http://www.nwf.org...
[15] https://www.cbd.int...
[16] http://www.un.org...=
[17] http://www.nowfoundation.org...
[18] http://www.nhs.uk...
[19] http://socialistworker.org...
[20] http://www.historyisaweapon.com...
TN05

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate topic. I look forward to a good debate!

In the interests of fairness, I will not be rebutting my opponent in this round. Instead, I will focus entirely on building my argument. I maintain that abortion should, at the very least, be illegal after the second and third trimesters, with of course exceptions for rape and to save the life of the mother.

A fetus is genetically human.[1] A fetus is also biologically alive,[2] which is fairly obvious because if it wasn't, there wouldn't need to be a special operation to kill it. Ergo, killing a fetus is killing a living human. Now, there are legal circumstances in which killing another human is legal, such as self-defense,[3] but clearly it isn't self-defense to kill a fetus unless it is to save the life of the mother. More importantly, I have yet to see a convincing reason as to why one should have the right to wait 30 weeks (210 days) before deciding to have an abortion. I have yet to see a convincing reason as to why partial-birth abortion (where the fetus is "the fetus is partially pulled out by its feet and then the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow passage through the birth canal"[4]) should be legal. I have yet to see a convincing reason why it should be legal to abort a viable fetus.

The fact of the matter is, there are indeed circumstances where abortion should be illegal - in particular, late-term abortions, where the fetus is viable (that is, capable of surviving outside the womb[5]), should not be legal. The earliest surviving premature birth was at 21 weeks,[6] and the point where a fetus has around a 50% chance to survive is 24 weeks. Once you surpass 27 weeks, the fetus has at least a 90% chance to survive.[7] Why should we draw a completely arbitrary line at birth, when it is scientifically proven a fetus beyond 27 weeks has a 90% chance to live? The only real difference between a fetus (inside the womb) and a baby (outside it) at that point is that you can't kill a baby, but you can kill the fetus. This policy does not conform with logic or science. Our abortion laws need to be reformed to reflect these sorts of scientific, medical truths, rather than the outdated views of uninformed politicians.

Another reason abortion should be illegal in some circumstances is popular consensus. Despite the claims of pro-choicers, public support for unlimited, unregulated abortion simply does not exist. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 72% of Americans think abortion should either be illegal in all circumstances or illegal in some circumstances, while only 26% think it should be legal in all circumstances. Only 39% of Americans think it should be legal in most or all circumstances, as compared to 58% who think it should be illegal in most or all circumstances. 64% of Americans think abortion should generally be illegal in the second trimester (as compared to 24% who think it should be generally legal), and 80% think it should be generally illegal in the third trimester (as compared to 14% who think it should be generally legal).[8] 69% of Americans support a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, 71% support requiring minors to have parental consent for an abortion, 64% support banning partial-birth abortion, 87% support requiring doctors to explain the risks of abortion, 88% support requiring doctors to notify patients of the alternatives, and 64% support requiring spousal notification prior to the abortion.[9] Even the most extreme anti-abortion measure, requiring an ultrasound, has 50% support.[9] Simply put, the American public does not support abortion in all circumstances. While I will admit public support is not necessarily something that should be used in and of itself to justify actions, I view this as simply the American public acknowledging reality - while most Americans view abortion as immoral, at least in some circumstances,[8] they realize it either isn't possible to ban it or think isn't moral to ban it, and thus support limitations on late-term abortions as well as sensible reforms, like requiring parental/spousal notification or having doctors explain risks and alternatives, but not an outright ban.

An under-reported issue with abortion is the effects on the father. Many in the pro-choice lobby might scoff that men, or the issues they have, should even be considered (even though more women are pro-life than pro-choice[10]), but the fact is the current legal system on abortion disadvantages the male. If the male favors an abortion, but the woman doesn't have it, he becomes a parent against his will and may literally have to pay for the woman's choice for decades. If the male favors life, but the woman has an abortion, he is robbed of the chance for parenthood.[11] I will admit it makes more sense to grant the woman the choice than split it with the man, given the man isn't having the child, but these issues only exist when abortion is legal, and would be completely absent in situations where abortion is outlawed.

The final issue I will make note of in this round is abortion causing infanticide, genocide, and ableism. It is an unfortunate fact that, in many countries in the world, it is far more desirable to have a male than a female, and thus any fetuses that happen to be female are killed.[12] This is appalling, and if abortion were to be made legal in all circumstances, the law would be supporting this discriminatory practice. Even more appalling to me is the use of abortion as eugenics, to get rid of any fetuses that have a condition like Down's Syndrome.[13] This is eugenics, plain and simple, and society long ago decided eugenics to be abhorrent.[14] Many pro-lifers argue abortion in the case of incest is appropriate, but I disagree.

In conclusion, there are numerous circumstances where abortion should be illegal, and numerous reasons why it should be illegal. Although there are compelling arguments to be made for a total ban, the most politically viable and culturally agreeable option would be to ban abortions after the first trimester, with the standard exceptions of rape, and to save the life of the mother. I will thoroughly debunk my opponent's arguments in the third round, but I look forward to seeing his response. I will close with the words of Margaret Sanger, the founder of abortion rights advocacy group Planned Parenthood:

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization".[15]

References:
1. http://www.nbcchicago.com...
2. http://clinicquotes.com...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://contraception.about.com...
5. http://www.reference.md...
6. https://en.wikipedia.org...
7. https://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.gallup.com...
9. http://www.gallup.com...
10. http://www.gallup.com...
11. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
12. https://en.wikipedia.org...
13. http://www.christianpost.com...
14. http://www.theguardian.com...
15. http://www.redstate.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Actionsspeak

Pro

Me and my opponent had an interesting second round in which we expressed some support for our stances, and I will gladly allow the debate to reach a grand stage, rebuttals.

A. My opponent has restated Margaret Sanger who said: "I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization"

My opponent has used the false attribute fallacy by attempting to show this claim to be true based on the listed source redstate.com. Redstate is a very biased news source that favors the right wing over the left wing. I've found an article on RedState that predicted Mitt Romney winning the presidental election over Barack obama by double digit percentage. [1] Other articles have even generalized an entire political party, and resorted to analogies involving reckless spending in an effort to shame the political party. [2]

Here is a quote from redstate:

"Democrats, after justifiably criticizing the deficit spending incurred during the Bush administration, have long since dwarfed its fiscal recklessness. Yet they refuse to behave in a responsible manner, and instead opt for the role of a teenage daughter with her father"s credit card." [2]

I will note that Republicans and independents alike criticized deficit spending decisions made by the Bush administrations and that Democrats have indeed criticized decisions made by the Obama administration.

False attribution fallacy: when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. [3] [4]

B. Multiple times my opponent has said:

"I have yet to see a convincing reason"

This quote you used was used to attack a few specific types of abortion, however I would like to note my entire second round was an objective argument using scientific knowledge that favored every type of abortion. In addition, even if you simply feel my argument was un-convincing it is simply your opinion and should not be taken as factual.

C. The difference from a baby to a fetus

The difference is whether the fetus is partially inside of the womb, or outside of the womb. By definition an abortion involves a procedure which results in the death of the fetus.

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. [5]

Fetus: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born. [5]

Embryo: a human or animal in the early stages of development before it is born, hatched, etc. [5]

Their is a difference between pre-birth and post-birth, that is caused by the fetus entering the stage of infancy. First I would like to state a fetus literally derives it's nutrients directly from the mother[round 2, 18], and may even be considered a parasite although this varies upon the definition however this varies upon the definition and in hopes to avoid an assymetric debate I will most likely not mention this again later through the debate. In addition the "line" shows the fetus is atleast 21 weeks old, which you even pointed out.

Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it. [5]

D. Popular Consensus

Well their is little to refute, you have already pointed out this is unnecessary.

My opponent said:
"While I will admit public support is not necessarily something that should be used in and of itself to justify actions"

While you literally admitted public support alone isn't necessarily something that should justify actions. Just to clarify if you listed the public as being correct simply because people have concluded it and for this instance often due to religious bias[6] you would be using the argumentum ad populum/bandwagon fallacy and deceiving the readers. [7] [8]

argumentum ad populum: a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

E. Men

So how do men factor into this? Simple, the sperm cell that meets and enters the egg cell is provided by a man. The man's body doesn't provide nutrients required to develop the fetus, and the man doesn't birth the child. Their are some countries in which the husband's consent is required for an abortion to take place [9], however this may create conflict when the mother's life is at a increased risk since she isn't given the basic right in deciding whether or nor she will enter a life or death scenario to have a baby. Also, abortions rights should not be restricted simply because the law of the country requires semi-complex work for the majority of citizen's wants to be met but the country should instead implament policies that will lead to a positive resolution for the majority of people.

F. Final rebuttal

You stated that infanticide, genocide, eugenics, and ableism are issues within the way abortion is currently handled and I couldn't agree more. except woth the infanticide part. However their are basic solutions to solving these problems if they become excessive in certain countries.

Infanticide: the act of killing a baby [5]

Based on the definition of abortion it cannot occur with an infant, but rather a fetus or embryo so this is rather off-topic from my opponent.

Genocide, eugenics, and ableism could be solved simply by limited data revealed on the fetus itself.

I understand this is a long and serious debate, thanks to anyone who has read the debate up to this point.

Sources:
[1] http://www.redstate.com...
[2] http://www.redstate.com...
[3] http://fallacies.findthebest.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6] https://www.spuc.org.uk...
[7] http://philosophy.lander.edu...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.guttmacher.org...
TN05

Con

In his opening arguments, my opponent lists three fairly short reasons why abortion should always be legal, with no exceptions: his first two reasons basically relate to the same topic (overpopulation), while the third relates to the rights of the mother. I will rebut each of these sections.

In his first section, my opponent lists the negative effects of overpopulation, and argues that banning abortion in any circumstance is bad, as it would lead to overpopulation. With all due respect to my opponent, this argument doesn't make a lot of sense - unless my opponent is arguing for mandatory abortions or a child-limitation policy, which I assume he is not. As it stands right now, abortion is entirely voluntary - that is, the choice lies, for the most part, with the mother. For this reason, abortion is not an effective solution to overpopulation, unless abortion is required (like in China). There are many other ways to ease overpopulation besides abortion, which include increasing education, teaching kids the consequences of sex, and increased awareness of condoms and contraception. To give a visual aid, take a look at this map, where darker regions represent higher population densities and lighter regions represent lower population densities:



As you can see, the regions with the worst overpopulation include Europe (a highly educated area), but the vast majority of the population comes from Asia and Africa - in particular, China and India, two developing countries with a weak rural education system. Thus the answer to overpopulation is not legal abortion, or even mandatory abortion, but instead education and economic development.

The last point he makes is on the rights of the mother. To quote him verbatim, "The one option of a women who doesn't wish to have a baby once pregnant is abortion, an extensive study has shown that every year 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions. [17] Women deserve the fundamental human right to a medical procedure performed on their body in which the fetus derives resources from [18] [19] [20] that is much safer option than performing an unsafe abortion that may lead to their death, on average 214 women die each day due to an unsafe abortion. [17]"

This is fairly poor logic. Rather than spending time justifying abortion, my opponent instead makes the argument that some abortions are unsafe, so abortion should be legal. That doesn't make much sense. Recreational drug usage is unsafe. Should drug use be legal? Drinking and driving is unsafe. Should drinking and driving be legal? Just because something is unsafe doesn't mean it should become legal. And on the rights of the mother, the procedure of abortion is not performed on their body. It is performed on another body, with the sole purpose of destroying it. I have established the moral and political reasons why abortions, particularly on viable fetuses, are morally and politically wrong.

Now, on to my opponent's newest rebuttals.

To begin, he tries to discredit my quote from Margaret Sanger because the source is RedState, a right-wing website. If my opponent wants to not count political websites, I'm more than happy to note that several of his citations (namely citation 6, which is a college research paper from a student, as well as citations 10, 14, 17, 19, and 20, which are biased political sources) are of questionable reliability. My opponent in correct in saying RedState is a conservative source. However, if you actually bother to read the article, you'll find that the quote comes from chapter 10 of Sanger's 1920 book Woman and the New Race.[1] The RedState link contains a direct link to the portion of her book where Sanger condemns abortion, as well as to other instances when she did so.[2] As such, this claim from my opponent is utterly refuted.

Next, my opponent takes issue with how I used the phrase "I've never seen a convincing reason" in regards to certain forms of abortion, and thus the voters should not regard it. I find this claim ludicrous. Aside from the fact I explicitly stated I was not rebutting my opponent in this round, I was using a rhetorical device to note that no convincing reasons have been given to support late-term or partial-birth abortions. I also find it odd that, rather than refuting the meat of my writing (namely, the morality of killing a living human, or why anyone needs to wait 210 days to decide to kill a fetus), he nitpicks over a phrase.

Next, my opponent gives basic definitions of 'fetus' and 'baby', and uses the common pro-abortion argument that fetuses are parasites. I appreciate the definitions, but my opponent misses the point here. Past 27 weeks, when a fetus has a greater than 90% chance of survival outside the womb, the only difference relating to whether or not you can kill it is that a baby has been born, while a fetus has not. My argument is that this does not conform to science or proven medical facts, but rather arbitrary human definitions.

Next, my opponent attempts to argue against the public consensus on abortion. Despite the fact I clearly noted that public support alone does not justify a ban, he attempts to claim the information is useless because public support doesn't matter. If my opponent wants to assert public opinion should not matter in governmental policy, I would like him to explain to me why anything should be illegal. If public opinion should not be factored into the decisions government makes, what is the point of representative government and why should anything be illegal? More importantly, if people are to check their beliefs at the door before making decisions, what morality should laws be based off of, since morality differs from person to person?

My opponent then attempts to refute my arguments relating to men. He seems to agree that there can be issues relating to men, but that abortion isn't the problem and that laws should instead be passed to 'lead to a positive resolution for a majority of people'. I would like my opponent to elaborate on what laws could be made to solve the issues I noted, otherwise I will assume he has ceded this point.

Next, he attempts to refute my points on the selective killing of babies due to their gender, race, or ableness. First off, he asserts the selective killing of female fetuses is not technically infanticide. My opponent can call it whatever he wants, but the selective killing of female fetuses is real as I have established through sources. Next he seems to admit the issues related to genocide and ableism could be resolved by banning prenatal testing. Hold up! Why should these be illegal? My opponent is arguing for an absolute right to choose to have an abortion, in part because it is the woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If that is the case, why should the woman not be able to use prenatal testing to make her decision? Isn't it her body, her choice? How can a woman have the right to literally kill a fetus, but not have the right to figure out stuff about the fetus beforehand? I don't understand this argument.

I look forward to the next round.

References:
1. http://www.bartleby.com...
2. http://www.redstate.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Actionsspeak

Pro

Continuation of rebutalls:

My opponent questioned the effectiveness of using abortion to halt population growth, saying it makes no sense. However he is incorrect in fact optional abortion is possibly the best option available as it limits population. Which is a rather obvious point, educating women on the consequences of childbirth, and empowering women about abortion may provide the strongest available option to fight overpopulation [1][2] that doesn't remove human rights[3]. I have granted more than enough evidence to show that abortion is a useful tool in fighting overpopulation.

My opponent has argued that because europe is more educated and has a worse overpopulation issue than areas like asia or africa clearly this is incorrect. With any luck I will only have to explain the demographic transition once to my opponent then we can move on.

The Demographic Transition [4] [5]

Stage one, in this stage countries are not yet industrialized and feature high death rates, to maintain the population high birth rates must occur. The population growth is sustainable (if present at all) however living conditions and auality of life are lower.

Stage two, in this stage countries are beginning to industrialize some results are food becomes plentiful, sanitation increases, and medical care bedomes more common. As a result deaths increase which caused a population increase.

Stage three, in this stage urbanization decreases economic incentives for havong a family and birth rates fall.

Stage four, finally the goal is met the population is sustainable just like in step one.(parts of europe, excluding immigration are in this step.) However their increased life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life for the country. [6] [7]

Most if not all of europe has already passed the transitonal steps and is developed, (as shown in source 6 and 7.) while humans on continents such as africa and asia are transitioning typically through stage two and three and are still growing at a greater rate (far far greater, excluding immigration.) I now feel that you understand this and you may understand that abortion is a useful tool in achieving and maintaining step four.

Continuation of rebutalls:

My opponent questioned my logic, so I will explain upon my thoughts. My opponent was correct to question my logic since my thoughts weren't fully expanded upon yet (granted the debate has 5 rounds and that was posted early) and I simply assumed you would see my viewpoint. Abortion needs further regulation to make sure safety is granted to the mother receiving an abortion (particularly in developing countries) and not just legalizing abortion is necessary but also granting proper facilities to ensure women have this essential human right. After facilities are updated/built and now give proper care this issue will become minor if still apparent. As the study has explained nearly all deaths appear in developing countries, so it's apparent that this issue is greatest in countries with worse medical facilities.

False Attribute

My sources give objective information and draw conclusions from it, your source (redstate) openly generalized and insulted a entire political party. While your source is completely subjective. (example: "I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.")
I was quite literally suprised to see the heavily biased source in an intellectual debate.

Lack of refutation?

My opponent asserts that I only refuted his repeated phrase "I've never seen a convincing reason" I admit you weren't refuting my points but you stated you had never seen a convincing argument for a specific type of abortion however if you simply read my second round (not refuted, but read) you could have seen my reasoning, as for convincing I stated that's completely subjective which is true.

Understanding

My opponent claims I missed his point, however I fully understand what he's argueing and don't understand why he simply expected me to concede the debate especially when all of round one could refute what you said, and I could use definition to show how a fetus may be considered a parasite.

Popular Consensus

My opponent insisted that if people don't like a law then it shouldn't exist and vice versa. He asked me to explain why laws exist at all so I will explain, I believe government exists to serve the common good[8], the common good is that which benefits all of society as a whole the keyword being beneficial if a women has made a cost-benefit analysis and an abortion benefits her she should have a right to it. Those against abortion (In almost every country, but exclude China due to the one-child policy.) are typically against it simply because they view it as unmoral not because it harms then in any way/shape/form.

Men

My opponent said:
"I would like my opponent to elaborate on what laws could be made to solve the issues I noted, otherwise I will assume he has ceded this point."

I will gladly elaborate, but could you perhaps write/re-write the issue/issues you're speaking of?

Infanticide

My opponent just ignored that a baby isn't a fetus.

Genocide, Ableism, and Eugonics

As my opponent stated in round 2:
"The final issue I will make note of in this round is abortion causing infanticide, genocide, and ableism. It is an unfortunate fact that, in many countries in the world, it is far more desirable to have a male than a female, and thus any fetuses that happen to be female are killed.[12] This is appalling, and if abortion were to be made legal in all circumstances, the law would be supporting this discriminatory practice. Even more appalling to me is the use of abortion as eugenics, to get rid of any fetuses that have a condition like Down's Syndrome.[13] This is eugenics, plain and simple, and society long ago decided eugenics to be abhorrent."

I agreed with you and fail to see how providing abortion as a right while limiting data provided on the fetus if the fetus faces an increased chance of ableism, genocide, and eugonics contradict care to elaborate?

Sources:
[1] http://cesleap2.blogspot.com...
[2] http://www.perkel.com...
[3] http://www.lifenews.com...
[4] http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
[5] http://www.learner.org...
[6] http://hdr.undp.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.britannica.com...
TN05

Con

To open his most recent rebuttals, my opponent argues optional abortion is the best way to limit population growth. This is silly - there are far more effective ways, including contraception, sex education, and abstinence. Effectively used contraception would prevent 99% of abortions, as it has the same effect but without the literally dismembering on an unborn child, and abstinence is even more effective. Further, my proposed ban on second and third-trimester abortions would only prevent about 1.4% of abortions in the United States, or slightly under 12,000 abortions annually.[1] Making abortion in illegal in some circumstances (namely, after the first trimester) would clearly not negatively affect overpopulation in any significant manner.

Next, my opponent decides to argue my claims on demographics of overpopulation. In particular, he notes the four stages of demographic transition. I'm not quite sure how this disproves my argument that poorly-educated areas are the most overpopulated, however - if anything, it seems to support the claim, as poor countries with high birth rates that industrialize eventually reach a point of stable population. Increasing education efforts would do far more to advance to that point than abortion would.

On my criticisms of his argument relating to abortion needing to be legal in all cases because many abortions are illegal and unsafe, my opponent elaborates his point, arguing abortion is a fundamental human right and thus needs to be legal in all cases. However, he has not actually established abortion as a human right, nor proven the fetus has no rights.

On my RedState source for the Margaret Sanger quote, my opponent seems to have ceded the point. He continues to argue RedState isn't reliable, and questions my usage of it in an intellectual debate, but doesn't try and refute the fact Sanger said it since I clearly established she did so in her own book. I'll repeat what I said last round: many of my opponent's citations come from biased sources, including source 10 (EcoLeaf, an environmentalist website), 12 (WWF, an environmentalist lobbying/research firm), 14 (NOW Foundation, a liberal pro-abortion lobbying group), and 19 (SocialistWorker.org, which pretty much speaks for itself in the title). I'm disappointed my opponent is arguing against my personal usage of one biased sourced for a proven factual claim, when he is using many more of these sources himself.

On refutation, I think my opponent and I have reached an impasse.

On understanding, my opponent doesn't say anything substantive to refute my argument that the difference between a fetus and baby beyond 30 weeks is an arbitrary, not scientific, definition. I'm also confused that he claims I expected him to concede the debate - I did not. I don't really understand this argument.

I appreciate my opponent giving his view on what decisions government should make. He argues the government should pass laws that promote the common good of all people. Confusingly, however, he then argues abortion should be legal because a woman might decide abortion benefits her personally. Just because something benefits one person does not mean it should be legal. An employee can't murder everyone else who applies for a promotion, for example, even though it would substantially increase his odds of getting a promotion.

In response to my request that he make suggestions for laws to fix issues relating to men (something my opponent acknowledges exists), my opponent asks for me to restate the issues I noted. I will gladly do so:

"If the male favors an abortion, but the woman doesn't have it, he becomes a parent against his will and may literally have to pay for the woman's choice for decades. If the male favors life, but the woman has an abortion, he is robbed of the chance for parenthood."

Thus, I am asking my opponent to create a law that will fix these issues, which he agrees exist. Alternatively, my opponent could prove these issues don't exist.

Finally, on infanticide, my opponent notes he agrees with me and supports restrictions on a woman's ability to discern her child's sex, race, or any mental issues. He questions how I am seeing a contradiction in his simultaneous belief that abortion should always be legal because it is the right of the mother. The answer is, that, if the woman has the right to have her unborn child killed under the justification that it is her choice and her body, why should she not have the choice to have prenatal testing? It's still her body, and her choice. By agreeing that selectively killing fetuses on basis of race, sex, or disability, my opponent is agreeing there are some scenarios where abortion results in a negative result - one that is negative enough that it needs to be prohibited. Thus my opponent is undermining his own case.

I look forward to the final round.

References:
1. http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
Actionsspeak

Pro

I understand this is an incredibly long debate so I will try to make this round as short as possible. My opponent has previously claimed a fetus is a simply unborn child, this is false however I understand he's trying to make an appeal to pathos. I'm assuming by that same logic an embryo is simply an unborm old man, since the difference you're undermining is development. Next you openly admit conception has a flaw even when used apropietly if anything this aids my argument, then you admit second and third trimester abortions occur and make up over 10,000 total abortions annually once again this aids my arguments, it doesn't aid them greatly but it still aids it. Increasing eductaion is a factor as my opponent noted, however I was clearly stating abortion is a factor that could help lower or stabilize population growth although this is stronger in developing countries. It would also aid developed countries since their immigration raises population (from developing countries typically, and this has created the overpopulation problem in europe.) I have argued abortion is a right as it affects the women's body, in fact the fetus harms the women in the same way extreme cases of worms harm humans. As for biased sources, my opponent still acknowledges redstate as if it held objective data that supported the subjective conclusion, however hasn't strongly defended this. For development abortion should still be legal regardless of the time the fetus was acting previously as a parasite might act, since it is still literally acting as a parasite. Abortion doesn't harm the common good, while murder does, in addition the male doesn't suffer the disadvantage of pregnancy and birth. For the issue you stated, the male isn't being harmed physically while the female is, so the law could support the women's right to abortion while allowing for male and female agreement contracts for example: An agreement could be came to in which if a man and woman sign it then the women would be legally responible for allowing the fetus/embryo to develop along with some exclusions such as the women's life being endangered by pregnancy. Finally, while abortion is a libertarian view, that doesn't mean I have to support all libertarian views as you've inferenced from your conclusion.

Thanks to my opponent, the debate has been fun and I even learned a little, thanks to the readers for sticking out an incredibly long debate and I respect anyone who votes on this debate with proper reasoning.
TN05

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate.

In his final rebuttals, my opponent begins by accusing me of making an appeal to pathos. This is silly. The brunt of my argument is not based on emotion, but science - namely, how there is no real difference between a fetus born at 30 weeks than born normally, at least in regards to viability. Even my contentions regarding the status of the fetus are based on scientific definitions - namely, that a fetus is biologically alive and genetically human. My opponent has not disproven either of these contentions.

My opponent asserts that I 'admit conception has a flaw'. I assume he meant 'contraception', but I never gave a flaw for contraception (aside from stating a 99% success rate, which would be a silly reason to oppose it given abortions fail sometimes as a well). Also, my opponent admits that my proposal to ban second and third-trimester abortions would only result in about 10,000 more births, which my opponent agrees 'doesn't [increase the number of births] greatly'. This basically undermines his overpopulation argument, as I have proven his overpopulation arguments don't give a valid reason to make abortion always illegal.

My opponent agrees education is important now, but still insists abortion is needed in undeveloped and developed countries. My proposal would only ban 1.4% of abortions, so abortion would still be available when desired in 99% of cases.

Next he argues abortion is a right as the fetus 'harms' the woman. I'd like to see a citation for this claim, but I think we can all agree that in cases where keeping the pregnancy alive would result in the woman's severe harm or death, abortion should be legal. This is a standard exception to abortion bans even among circles that support bans on abortion.

Next he continues to argue the RedState source, saying I 'still hold it as objective'. I would urge voters to note the many biased sources my opponent uses as well.

Once again, my opponent argues abortion should be legal because the fetus is a 'parasite'. Once again, my opponent is using an arbitrary, unsourced definition to try and reject the proven science I have given. He also asserts abortion doesn't harm the 'common good'. How is this so? He has not proven abortion is beneficial for all or most people - to the contrary, I have established it is harmful to both the fetus and many men (who, lest we forget, make up 50% of people worldwide).

Next, he argues that there could be a voluntary contract that would allow a man to opt out of pregnancy with the woman's agreement. This is silly and does nothing to solve the problem, because it requires the approval of both parties, whereas the abortion requires the approval of only one party. Considering the woman will be supported financially for the male for at least 18 years, what incentive does she have to void her rights to child support money?

Also, he argues he doesn't have to support all libertarian views. However, by his own logic women should have the right to an abortion because it's their body. However, he also argues women shouldn't have the right to perform pre-natal scanning, even though it is their body. Those are contradicting - if the woman's right to her own body isn't absolute, why should abortion be absolute? By my opponent's own logic he admits there are circumstances where, at the very least, abortion results in a negative outcome (namely, abortions on basis of race, sex, or disability), one that warrants being prohibited. He is basically admitting abortion isn't always right and shouldn't always be legal, which undermines his entire case.

As you can most likely tell, my opponent's case simply doesn't hold up. I have established a fetus is biologically alive and genetically human, that fetuses have a greater than 90% chance of surviving outside the womb beyond 27 weeks in the pregnancy, that vast public support exists for common-sense abortion restrictions, and that men are adversely affected by abortion. In contrast, my opponent's case only rests on two points: overpopulation, which my opponent agrees my proposed ban on second and third-trimester would not greatly affect, and the woman's right, which both me and my opponent have established is not absolute. I thus strongly urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
@Dilara - I appreciate your opinion, but I would prefer the comments section not become a debate in and of itself. :)
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
@Dil
----
It wouldn't be suprising if that point was brought up over the course of this debate, however i'm fully prepared to refute it.
Posted by Dilara 3 years ago
Dilara
Abortion should not be legal unless the pregnancy is a threat to the mothers health and life. The life of a human is more important than anything and no one has the right to deny anyone of that right especially a child who has so much to see and experience. A human LIFE should not be up to one person to decide.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
ActionsspeakTN05Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately, I feel as if this was fairly straightforward. Pro's solvency for population is non-unique, namely because Con can still allow many abortions to occur. Additionally, Con leaves me wondering about the personhood and thinking about the contradiction in rights. These points in tandem mean that, for me, Pro cannot meet his BOP. Pro's many issue was in affirming an absolute; Pro may have won had this debate said "under most circumstances," vice "all." [Full Disclosure: I was asked to Vote By Pro.]
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
ActionsspeakTN05Tied
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: Pro and con did a credible job, but in the end they danced around the issue of personhood without actually addressing it. That being said, con gave some valid reasons for limiting at least some abortions.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
ActionsspeakTN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There were three major parts to this debate: overpopulation, women's rights, and whether or not a fetus is a human. I will explain why Con solidly won all three parts. Con definitely wins the overpopulation contention, showing that there are much more effective ways to handle overpopulation than abortions. Con also definitely wins the part about whether or not a fetus is a human, showing that it is biologically alive, genetically human, and even self-aware to an extent. The last part of the debate, women's rights was probably where the majority of argumentation was done; however, by the end of the debate, Pro had virtually conceded that contention by contradicting himself on whether or not women's rights are absolute, especially on the part about pre-natal scanning. So, Con wins on all three parts of the debate. That being said, both debaters put forth a great effort, so props to both sides!