The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

The USFG Should Ban Abortion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,932 times Debate No: 86350
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (116)
Votes (3)




Resolution: The USFG Should Make Abortion Illegal In Most Situations.

Full Resolution: The US Federal Government should make Abortion illegal except in cases where the Mother's life is likely at risk of death.

Abortion: The purposeful discontinuing of a human pregnancy.
Ban: Disallow in all but prior mentioned circumstances.
Human Rights: Human Rights are the freedoms and rights as listed in the US Constitution and UNDHR.

Con may begin in R1 (waiving his R4 final) if he wishes.

- No Kritiks or wordplay.
- No Shotgunning.
- Sources may be External.
- No voting Conduct or S&G.

Famousdebater has been chosen for this debate.


I will just be using this round for acceptance. Thank you Donald.Keller for choosing me to be your opponent and I eagerly await your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, FamousDebater, for accepting this debate. I hope for a good challenge.

Premise I: Human Rights.

Con has, by accepting the debate, accepted the definition of Human Rights as given by the US Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

[1] The US Constitution:
[2] The Bill of Rights:
[3] The UNDHR:

Premise II: Limitation of Rights.

Of all criteria for limiting human rights, the most common, and most reasonable, is when it invades on more important rights. This is in line with popular beliefs such as those of a Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, and Egalitarianism.

Argument I: Living Human.

Sub-argument I: Living.

The ultimate issue at the heart of the debate is whether or not the fetus is a living human being. The criteria needed to be considered 'living' is known as the Characteristics of Life.

The following are the twelve characteristics of life, as defined by scientist.
Homeostasis / Metabolism / Organization / Genes / Feeding / Growth / Response / Adaption / Reproduction / Excretion / Movement / Respiration.

A simple review of basic embryological studies show that the fetus fulfills each of the twelve characteristics by week two (if not sooner): The fetus will fulfill each criteria with a hundred percent certainty by the time the placenta has formed. Through the placenta, the fetus can maintain homeostasis [4], metabolism [5], feeding [6], adaption [7], excretion [8], and respiration [9]. The fetus removes waste through the placenta, while also taking in nutrients, hormones, and oxygen through it. The placenta (part of the fetus, and not the mother) also adapts the level of each nutrient and hormone the fetus intakes to control stress and growth.

The fetus has organization [10], genes [11], growth [12], movement [13], and can respond to stimuli (which is how it knows to move down the Fallopian Tube and to grow the placenta.) As a zygote, it has reproduction (cell-division) [14]. Even if we looked past cell-division, the Fetus is capable of reproduction much like a 1 year old is. It's not that it can't, but that it'll develop the means to in time.

The Zygote is defined by scientists as an eukaryotic cell [14]. Biologically speaking, all eukaryotic cells are living. To sum this up in a syllogism:

P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.
P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.
C) All zygote are living.


Sub-argument I: Human.

There is no question over whether or not the fetus is human among scientists and biologists. Only philosophers and those with no experience with embryology question the humanity of the unborn... As the famous embryology book, Human Embryology & Teratology [15], said:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." - O'Rahilly.

Kieth Moore wrote in his popular embryology book, Essentials of Human Embryology, that the fetus is the beginning of a human being:
"... This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." - Moore.

But to address philosophical methods of evading science... Performance Based Criteria (PBC) says that the criteria include such functions as conscience, independence, ability to feel emotion, sentience... On what grounds are these the criteria of being Human? Correlation.

Con and many others assume being human means being conscience, for example, because every human seems to have that... It's also faulty cause and effect... All humans have A, therefore they are human because they have A. However, a comatose patient can not fulfill any of the four characteristics listed above. Nor could a sleeping person. Nor can a person born with Alexithymia feel emotion [17], nor can a person with Congenital Analgesia feel pain [18]. Are either of them inhuman? If someone is born blind, deaf, mute, and unable to feel anything at all, would they not be human still?

These criteria fall short of describing a human being. The only trait that all humans share... The only thing that makes one human, is their genetics [19].

[15] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29
[16] Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2

Argument II: Human Rights.

Now that we have established that the fetus is a living human, we should discuss the law. The fourteen amendment of the US Constitution claims that all persons get the right to life. Many believe this only applies to citizens, but a review of the text prove otherwise. The text starts by defining Citizen as a person born or naturalized in the US. It then says that the states may not abridge on the privileges or immunities of a citizen... But when describing who the states can't deprive of the right to life, the amendment only says 'person'. Not 'person born or naturalized' or 'citizen'... Just person. This is why you can't kill or steal from an illegal immigrant [2].

The UNDHR equally reaffirms this. A review of Article II, III, and VI, show that the unborn has the right to life and liberty, and therefore abortion is a violation of these rights and liberties.

Article II
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...

Article VI
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article III
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The UNDHR states, in Article II, that all humans have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI says that the Government must recognize all humans as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life.

Argument III: Conflict of Rights.

Bodily Autonomy is the argument most quoted in defense of Abortion. However, the fetus equally has the right of bodily autonomy. The fetus's DNA is entirely separate of the Mothers, as is the unborn's body. The fetus also, as a living human, has the right to life. The child's Bodily Autonomy and Right to Life outweighs the singular Bodily Autonomy of the mother.

Even in cases of rape and incest, the fetus's right to life is relevant. The mother's right of mental security or comfort does not outweigh the Fetus's life. If we establish that the Mother’s right to happiness were more important, then we must allow her to have an 'abortion' after birth. In reality, mental trauma can be cured or at least relieved through medical aid and therapy. Death can not be.

Abortion, if anything, often causes more trauma. Within 8 weeks, 55% of women expressed guilt, with over 40% reporting nervous disorders. Over a tenth had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. This makes abortion a terrible cure for the trauma of women. [20] Most women find relief after giving birth.


Argument IV: The Reverse Violinist.

The Violinist is perhaps the second most common Pro-choice argument. However, it's a bad comparison. It uses a stranger-stranger relationship, which isn't legally similar to a mother-child relationship. Take, for example, a missing child. If a stranger doesn't report a missing child, the law does nothing. A mother would be prosecuted, as she has a legal responsibility to her children.

The Violinist also uses a situation that doesn't represent pregnancy. The woman wakes up without knowledge of how she got into the situation, and without having done anything to cause this to happen. The analogy also makes the unborn appear like an abusive bad guy. The unborn isn't a famous violinist who chose to be attached to the woman to save his own life. Therefore, I propose 'The Client' in it's place.

As the analogy goes, a women goes to a scientist for a drug to make her high. Every time she goes there, she knows she risks the high causing her to faint. She is aware that when she wakes up, the scientist will have hooked her up to random stranger for his experiments. The stranger is unaware of how he got there. The scientist will make his body reliant on her body for nine months for his experiments...

The women goes there over and over again, until one day she ends up in this situation. She has two choices, kill him, or keep him alive. She choices to kill him, saying "I know my choices put you here, but it's my body, and I wish to continue doing these drugs. I am under no obligation to keep you alive, since you're infringing upon my bodily rights."

The first half better represents pregnancy, and the second half represents the abortion. We can better see the issues with abortion.

Summary: The fetus is a living human, and is therefore given the right of life from the Constitution. Abortion is a violation of human rights as defined by both the Constitution and the UNDHR. Therefore, unless the mother's life is in danger, Abortion should be illegal.



OBV 1 - The BOP is shared in this debate. I must demonstrate that abortion shouldn't be banned in the US, whereas my opponent must prove that abortion should be banned.

OBV 2 - Since the BOP is shared this ultimately means that we must both provide a case which should attempt to prove our positions in the debate (as stated in observation 1). If we manage to prove our position to be true this means that we win the debate. Since both our positions conflict (I believe in allowing abortions; my oponent believes in banning it), this means that only one of us can prove our positions to be correct in this debate. Whoever does this wins.


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

Capitalism magazine explains this by saying,

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

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

You ought to buy the libertarian framework because this debate is based on a law change and a law change should be in the people’s best interest as well as the government's. With the less restrictive government the people’s choices must be respected and considered.

The Fetus Is Not Alive

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

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

There are 7 categories in which life can be identified. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion. The fetus only meets 2 of these when, in order to classify it as living, it must meet all of them [6].

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

Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own [7].

Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks [8].

Growth - The fetus does grow.

Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce [9].

Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely [10].

Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.

If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Ergo, the fetus is not living. If the fetus is not living then a termination is not detrimental to society and it does not act as a law violation (ie. murder).

Even if the fetus is alive, you still ought to presume Con.

“the "right to life" doesn’t imply a right to use somebody else’s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else’s life.” [19]

You ought to vote Con based on this premise alone.

Illegal Abortions

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

Did you know:

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

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

Underaged teenagers

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

This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources [13,14,15]. Whilst this is still arguably subjective there are also many reasons as to why you should view your twenties as the most important reason in your life objectively. Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house [22]. Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money.

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

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

“The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” [21]

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

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

Gender Equality

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

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

She continued:

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

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

The philosopher, Judith Thomson said:

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

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

P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality

P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights

C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights

C2: Abortions should be legalized


14000 women yearly get abortions because they are raped yearly [12]. This may seem like a small amount (and in reality it is just 1%) however these are 14000 individuals that, under the libertarian framework, should be valued and considered in society. In libertarianism, the life is valued under opposite standards to utilitarianism [12]. 1 life is just as valuable as 100. Libertarians are individualists - not collectivists [20]. Under the libertarian framework life matters, no matter how small the number the freedom of the individual should be prioritized. Government restriction should be minimal and by preventing abortions you create a restriction. Due to the libertarian framework you ought to vote con.


I have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you ban abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers / children and it also violates the law. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round. I thank my opponent for initiating such an interesting resolution. The resolution is negated. Vote Con!

Sources in external link which is allowed (see the rules in R1):
Debate Round No. 2


Premise I: Human Rights.

Con has accepted this Premise through silence, and rightly so, since it was part of accepting the debate.

Premise II: Limitation of Rights.

Con has accepted the limitation of rights as described here with his framework.
"If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily"

I should also mention that this is merely Con's belief system, and not the system the voter's must use. I, for example, am arguing from a general point-of-view to apply to any belief system. The only belief that my case, and Con's case, agrees on is that rights end where other, more important rights, begin.

Rebuttal I: Living Human.

Con has conceded to the use of the Characteristics of Life in determining if the fetus is living. He listed off several Characteristics, but fell short of the embryological information available on the subject. Embryology disagrees with his many claims. Taking the Characteristics he claimed the fetus can not do, I can fill in the blanks.

-- Respiration - The fetus needn't breath by itself. Many humans can't breath unless you are making them. For example, some people require air be forcibly pumped into their lungs. A fetus, by age 2 weeks, receives oxygen from the placenta (which is apart of the fetus) [1].
-- Sensitivity - This is not a characteristic of life... Many people are born unable to feel pain. There is a Characteristic regarding responding to stimuli, which the Zygote does. It responds to stimuli telling it to travel the Fallopian Tubes, and then to stimuli telling it to grow the placenta.
-- Reproduction - Neither can a two week old baby, and for the same reasons.
-- Excretion - The fetus excretes through the placenta as soon as age 2 weeks [2].
-- Nutrition - The fetus takes in nutrients through the placenta [3].

Con's mistake is his faulty believe in independence as the primary source of fulfilling these criteria... It's not. A comatose patient proves this immediately. So does anyone on an iron lung.

I have shown in my R2 each and every characteristic, pre-rebutting this entire case.


Rebuttal II: Mother/Teen Health.

Sub-argument I: Mother's Health.

Illegal Abortions in third world countries, making up the 13% death toll stat, is not like illegal abortions in the US. In fact, pre-Roe v Wade, less than 40 people died from illegal abortions in 1972 [4]. In the US, more than 90% of illegal abortions were done by medical professionals with respectable standing in their field [5]. The "backally abortion" Con throws around is a myth.

Illegal abortions in the US pre-Roe v Wade years were incredibly safe, with casualties declining every year. With modern medicine and practices, the causalities would be even smaller. Another error in Con's case is that those nations that have illegal abortions, have A LOT of them because of poor law enforcement, nation-wide poverty, and regimes who don't care about the abortion laws. The US has a much better law-enforcement system, and a lot less poverty.

So illegal abortions wouldn't be a problem... More importantly, however, is that Con's case is a fallacy. It presumes that the consequence of breaking the law is relevant in whether it should be law. More importantly, it presume abortion isn't the termination of a living human...

Since my Argument I and II holds up against his own case, it can be established that abortion is the termination of life. Therefore, even if 100,000 women die from illegal abortions, it would be less than 10% of the 1.06 million abortions done annually [6]. At 39 deaths (last known estimate), deaths from illegal abortions equal 0.000037% of the current death toll from abortion.

In fact, looking over the data, before Roe v Wade, legal abortions were only seen in 20% of the US, but legal abortions made up nearly 40% of all deaths... Looking at a study by J. Wilke (2000), Poland banned abortions in almost all circumstances, and lyet abortions decreased greatly, and there were no deaths from illegal abortions reported [7].

In fact, abortion often harms the mother, increasing their odds of mental issues by over 80% that of normal women, found a study by Coleman (2011)[8].

[5] Mary Calderone, “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Health 50 (July I960): 949.
[7] J. C. Willke, “Clear Evidence: If Forbidden, Abortion Will Not Return to the Back Alley,” Life Issues Connector, Life Issues Institute, April, 2000,1,3.

Sub-argument II: Teen Health.

Con's case is more of a call for social reform... Either way, Con's stats on cost are misleading. Childcare may, from age 0 - 18, cost $245,000, but that's not evenly distributed... The earlier years cost less. The teenager often receives parental aide during the cheaper, earlier years of the infants life. Con's case also ignores government aide. The EITC alone pays up to $3,000+ a year, or $55,000+ over the course of 18 years [8].

Although Con's numbers are wrong. The study by the Department of Agriculture included nearly $75,000 in "housing" costs, and another $40,000 in food. For a 16 year old, for example, these would be excluded for a likely 4-6 years. The cost also ignores generic shopping and cost-saving methods, such as getting the $2 cereal over the $5 cereal, and buying cloths from yard sales. This alone cuts the real cost down a lot.

Con even tries misleading the reader by comparing $250,000 to the average household income of $51,000 a year... An accurate picture is $915,000 v $250,000.

More importantly, however, is that teenage Mothers can adopt away the child to families who can care for them. Most importantly is the fact that the right to financial/mental security is not more important than one's right to life. By that argument, a women could "abort" her child post-birth if financial troubles arise because of him.


Rebuttal III: Women's Rights.

This case is an opinion piece, built up by the opinion of two people... Con never quotes one constitutional case or legal document backing him up.

Premise 1 in his case is wrong... It presumes removing Abortion is gender inequality, but how? Men don't have the right to an Abortion, nor do the unborn have a say. Con's case in no way draws on what Gender Equality is. Unless men can have abortions, or a say in an abortion, Con's merely tries to scare people. In truth, Gender Inequality is NOT refusing a gender their rights... But refusing them a right the other gender still has... This is a fear tactic.

Gender Inequality:
Social process by which people are treated differently and disadvantageously, under similar circumstances, on the basis of gender. [9]

Equally so, Con's own case is made in ignorance of the very framework he laid out. In his framework, rights can be restricted when another, more important right, is infringed upon. Suddenly he tries to say that a right can be restricted unless it's a women's right being restricted, because then it's Gender Inequality.


Rebuttal IV: Rape and Incest.

This case is made on a number of faulty assumptions. The first assumption is that the rape victims right to mental happiness is greater than the right to life. If the unborn is, in fact, a living human, then the rights of a rape victim to future happiness do not exceed the fetus's own right to life and future happiness. The second assumption is that abortion helps the rape victim. Abortion doesn't solve the problem at the heart of the Mother's issues, nor is there any wieght to the claim that the baby poses "unwanted memories". As shown in Rebuttal II, abortion can even pose serious threats to a women's mental health, especially when added to the issues of rape.

Con says 1 life is no greater than 100... This is NOT the belief of a libertarian, nor does a person believing in individualism believe this. Put a libertarian in the following position: He must let 1 person die, or 100. He will pick the 1 person to die. Con's mistake is looking at the Collective from the Collectivist's point-of-view. Only Collectivism believes the worth of an individual relates to the collective. He says a "collective of 1,000,000" people is equal to 1 mother, but ignores that it's "1,000,000 individuals" compared to 1 mother, as opposed to 1 collective... The worth of an individual in a group of 100 people is not 1% that of an individual outside the group.

Con also wrongly groups up people by a concept, and not a common goal (all aborted fetuses, for example, are grouped only by the fact that they are all aborted fetuses, as opposed to being grouped by their own intention and common goal [which is what an actual Collective is]). Con can not group together random people, and deem their individual value lower because of it. The fetus is not a part of a collective of fetuses... It's an individual unborn, unique from the others.

More so, Con measures only in deaths. Letting 1,000,000+ unborn die to save the life of 14,000 women is wrong, but letting them die to save only the happiness of the women is far different, and far worse.

Returning on topic, the fetus, being alive, has the right to life. Mental sercurity and happiness is not more important than the right to life.

The right to life of the Fetus is more important than the right to Bodily Autonomy, Happiness, and Financial Security. Since the fetus is a living human, the Resolution is affirmed through both Pro and Con's own frameworks.

For this round, my cases from R2 stands, as Con focused only on his arguments. As such, my case pre-rebuttals his own.


Thank you Donald.Keller for presenting your arguments. They are very well written and thought out but unfortunately they can be refuted which is what I will be using this round to do. This has been an interesting and challenging debate so far and I hope that this discussion continues to remain at the quality that it is currently at. Without further ado, I’ll begin with my rebuttals on my opponent’s constructive case.


I agree to both of my opponent’s premises (P1 and P2). They do not conflict with my position and they do not support my opponent’s. Ergo, agreeing with me is not a concession of any form.


Even under my opponent’s definition of life the fetus is still considered to be non living. My opponent claims that the fetus can excrete which is completely false. In fact, he misuses his source. If you check his source it does not mention excretion at all. This is bare assertion and voters ought to consider this as unsourced. Excretion is extremely rare and is not applicable to the fetus on a whole. When it does happen it often leads to Oligohydramnios [1]. This is a rare condition that occurs as a result of this. Overall, the fetus does not excrete, saying that the fetus excretes is a huge exaggeration. 96% do not have oligohydramnios, therefore it is incorrect to claim that the fetus can excrete [2]. As well as this there are other things that make it questionable. Respiration is not independently done, it is technically performed by the mother. Without the aid of the mother for respiration the fetus will die [3].

My opponent’s syllogism is incorrect. All eukaryotic cells are organisms [5]. This doesn’t immediately mean that they should be considered as living. An example of something that we generally consider to be non living but still an organism is a virus [4]. From this we can conclude that the fetus is an organism - but not a living one. The correct syllogism would be:

P1) All eukaryotic cells are organisms.

P2) Organisms can be living and nonliving

P3) The fetus is eukaryotic.

C1) The fetus is not necessarily living.


My opponent attempts to prove that the fetus being classified as a human is a truism and is only contested by philosophers who have little knowledge of embryology. This is false. There is a large difference between ‘human’ and ‘will be human’. Those that are against abortion often confuse the terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’. As Joyce Arthur put it,

“a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote” [6]

She continues with her example,

“Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes” [6]

As many pro choice people have put it, the fetus (and the cloned cell) represent potential to be human. Not humans. The famous saying illustrates this nicely: “an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.”

The fetus is comparable to the virus. The virus (which is considered nonliving) is dependant on a host cell. Just like the fetus is dependant on the mother. Humans, by definition, must be separate individuals from other human beings. As Arthur put it: They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive. [6]

I do not assume that humans must be conscious or sentient. I do, however, believe that they must individuals which is clearly violated as I have explained.

Human Rights

My rebuttals essentially negate this contention however I will expand upon this more specifically now.

Almost all constitutions do not treat fetuses as citizens. American citizenship is limited to people that are "born or naturalized in the United States" (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word "Everyone" in the Canadian constitution does not include fetuses [7].

Giving fetuses human rights would only result in countless legal and social problems that would be difficult to achieve. “Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception?” [6]. The absurdity of this only proves that the fetus should not be considered to living and should, more specifically, not be given human rights. Even if you decided to make special laws and exception only applicable to fetus’ that would just make my opponent’s argument that the fetus is human to be invalid because they would no longer be recieving the same rights as human beings.

Anti choicers, like my opponent, are contradicting themselves. They argue that the fetus deserve human rights because they are living however they fail to acknowledge that the mother is proven to be human and by denying them the right to an abortion you are denying them of their right to choice over their body [8]. This leads me on to the conflict of rights contention which I will now refute.

Conflict of Rights

This, again, is dependant on the premise that the fetus is a living human (which I have already negated). But even without the negation of that premise it is still a flawed argument. It is not proven that the fetus is a living human (and that is made obvious by the fact that abortion is such a widely discussed and debated topic). It is, however, proven that the mother is living. As well as this, my opponent attempts to show that 2 human rights violations are worse than 1. This is false. Human rights cannot be prioritized, 1 violation is just as bad as any number of violations [9][10].

My opponent then says that the mental security and happiness of the mother cannot and does not outweigh the fetus’ right to life. This is not true. Human rights cannot be prioritized [10]. They are both equally important, but when you consider the additional factor (stating that the fetus may or may not be living) then you ought to side with the human right prioritizing the mother because of the potential outcomes. If you prioritize the fetus then you are violating the mother’s human rights and the fetus may not be living. If you prioritize the mother then the mother’s human rights aren’t being violated and the fetus may or may not be living. Since we don’t know for certain whether or not the fetus is living we ought to go with the mother because if we don’t give her human rights then she is definitely losing her human rights whereas with the fetus it may be losing its human rights.

Post abortion trauma is significantly lower than my opponent suggests. The myth that post abortion trauma is this common is false and has been severely critiqued. Post abortion trauma was diagnosed by PAS.PAS is not recognized as a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.' This is vital to note since after extensive research in both the UK and the US it was concluded thathe study on which the case for ‘PAS’ is based is extremely unreliable. Ellie Lee, at the University of Southampton, posted her conclusion on the case using the following words: There is no credible evidence for the existence of a Post Abortion Syndrome,” [11]. My opponent’s sources and statistics are wrong. The statistics concluded from my opponent’s sources are statistics from years: 1973 - 1987 [12]. The safety and counselling regarding abortion has significantly increased since then so the statistics are likely much lower than my opponent claims [13].

The Reverse Violinist

This is a massive oversimplification of abortions. The analogy doesn’t speak or take into account: financial issues, the age of the women, rape or the possibility that the man she is forced to be hooked up to is possibly not even living. Furthermore, my opponent fails to explain the significance of the analogy. My opponent does not provide an alternative framework to mine and therefore the only framework we have to view this debate upon is libertarianism and this is a clear restriction that is being placed upon the woman. Consequently, it violates the debate framework because of this the woman would still be given the option to kill the man.

This argument is so flawed that even if the example was an accurate portrayal of abortion and even if the example didn’t violate libertarianism it would still be flawed and wrong. This is simply because in this scenario the scientist would be held responsible for the life not the woman. The woman is addicted to the drug and therefore cannot stop themselves. The scientist is giving her the drug and is aware of the potential dangers that the drug presents. Ergo, if this scenario actually occurred, the woman would be allowed to disconnect herself and consequently kill the man and the scientist would be penalized and so would the woman (but with a less serious consequence) [14]. Therefore, the scientist would be held primarily responsible not the woman. The analogy is flawed due to this.


I have proven my opponent’s claims to be false in this round and have gone into depth about why the fetus is not living or human and as to why the mother’s rights ought to be considered more important than the rights that the fetus has (according to my opponent). My opponent’s contentions do not stand and their burden cannot be fulfilled. The resolution is negated. Vote Con!

Sources in external link:
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you, Pro, for this debate.

Argument I: Living Human.
Sub-Argument I: Living.

Pro has dropped all but two Characteristics, thus leaving only Excretion and Respiration in dispute.

Pro is, at most, only correct that the corresponding source didn't say the fetus can fulfill the characteristic of excretion. This is a sourcing error. The final source in R2's Argument I was accidentally placed in the spot for Source 4, pushing each source up one citation. The source cited for Excretion was actually the source for Adaption, and Adaption's cited source is for Feeding. Excretion was source 9. The sources were copied over, causing sourcing errors in R3. No doubt the use of Tinyurl caused me to mismatch my sources. However, the sourcing for R2, where my source for excretion is still intact, is left untouched.

By the formation of the placenta, it gives the fetus oxygen and nutrients, and then it returns the waste into the mother's system to be disposed of [1].

"As well, the placenta acts like a lung for the baby, allowing the transfer of oxygen just like the lungs do in a newborn baby or adult. Once the baby has used the blood with the oxygen, the blood goes back to the placenta to get rid of carbon dioxide and pick up more oxygen. The placenta also ensures these waste products [referring to nutrients as well, based on textual context] from the baby are released into the mother's circulation, which in turn are disposed of through her urine." - Dr. A. Bisits.

As well as my Source 9 from R2:

"The placenta also carries oxygen and nutrients from mother to fetus and waste materials from fetus to mother." - H. Brownn MD.

Pro's next case is that being an organism =/= being living. He uses a virus as an example, but many do consider virus's living... Eitherway, a virus is not an organism by definition. It's referred in biology as an 'agent'.

a) Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms [2]
b) An ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent [3]
c) The causative agent of an infectious disease
d) Any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents [4]
e) A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms [5]

That being said, reference the definition of Organism:

a) An individual living thing [6]
b) An organism is any contiguous living system [7]
c) A form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
d) A form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran. [8]
e) An individual form of life [9]

A virus is not an organism, and therefore Pro's analogy fails to succeed. Meanwhile, an organism is always living, so my syllogism succeeds. Pro also hangs to the claim that the fetus does not breath on it's own... However, I already explained that independence isn't relevant, and gave off comatose patients and being keep alive with an iron lung as an example. Pro ignored this, in therefore his case is refuted. The requirement for respiration is merely that you must respire, not that it must be by yourself. Many animals and organisms can't live independantly of another organism's body.

The unborn is, by conception, a living organism because it is an eukaryotic cell by conception. Even then, it fullfills all the characteristics of life by age 2 weeks, and likely much earlier. By Pro's own framework, Con wins on these ground alone.


Sub-Argument II: Human.

Pro quotes a pro-choice activist with no standing in the embryological/biological community, expecting this to counter several high-ranking biology textbooks written by major Embryologists. This is ground enough to make this activitist's opinion null.

However, I will address it. This is an ancient argument that has long since been refuted by a simple logical analysis... The fetus's human DNA is unique, and the fetus fulfills the biological Characteristics of Life, breaking it from all of Pro's examples. A piece of hair, fingernail, or even a skin cell, has the DNA of it's owner. It is 'apart' of an organism, not a separate organism. The fetus's DNA is unique from the mother's own, and therefore a separate body. This is why the bacteria in one's body is considered a separate organism from the human.

A hair, or a fingernail, does not fulfill any of the characteristics of life... It doesn't breath (not to confuse with symbolic breathing, IE 'letting a wound breath') or respond to stimuli or even fulfill excretion. Therefore, none of these are unique organisms, or even organisms. Unlike the fetus, which fulfills all the characteristics of life.

The fetus is human in everyway. It's DNA is human, and it's (through sub-argument I) a unique organism.

Argument II: Human Rights.
"Anti choicers..." Such naming is in poor taste. Shall I call you anti-lifers? No. Show some respect to your opponents, and learn the proper naming conventions regarding idealogies (IE they must be called Pro-X. Never Anti-X. This creates negative naming bias.) The name was used in spite of me, and nothing more. An insult against me for the crime of disagreeing on something on grounds that Pro's own framework even suggests is reasonable.

Pro's own case is erroneous. He literally ignores my own case... I shall repeat it:
"The text starts by defining Citizen as a person born or naturalized in the US. It then says that the states may not abridge on the privileges or immunities of a citizen... But when describing who the states can't deprive of the right to life, the amendment only says 'person'. Not 'person born or naturalized' or 'citizen'... Just person. This is why you can't kill or steal from an illegal immigrant."

Let's bring up the Amendment, something I didn't have the character limit for last round.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... [10]

The text doesn't say all "citizens" when reguarding the Right to Life, despite the continuous use of the word for every other right. It only says "person." Pro's case literally means I may murder an illegal immigrant because he is not "born or naturalized" and therefore has no human rights. Pro says pro-lifers contradict themselves by acknowledging one person's right but not another? Pro is the only one contradicting himself... It was HE who accepted Premise II, and now calls it 'contradictory' to use it.

He treats it as though I acknowledge every fetal light, but ignores all female rights... However, his case also means that if I said you couldn't murder someone, I'd be contradicting myself by acknowledging that person's right to life while not acknowledging the murder's right to murder.

Note that Pro has dropped the UNDHR.


Argument III: Conflict of Rights.
Pro has conceded to Premise II... Therefore his case is mute. He argues that all rights are equal, and none is greater than another. To quote Premise II:

"Of all criteria for limiting human rights, the most common, and most reasonable, is when it invades on more important rights."

Now to quote Pro:

"I agree to both of my opponent’s premises (P1 and P2)."

Worse so is that his case is entirely wrong. Rights are weighed. The right to life, for example, is greater than the right to pride. I can not kill someone over an insult. To quote a phrase from Pro: "If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily."

Besides, US law is based on wieghing rights. Unless Pro wishes to argue that the status quo here is wrong, his belief that rights shouldn't be wieghed isn't relevant to how the USFG does things.

Argument IV: Counter Violinist.
The Reverse Violinist doesn't represent abortion... It represents pregnancy. The original Violinist fails because it fails to accurately represent what pregnancy is. The reverse violinist is useful because it does represent pregnancy correctly. The beauty of it is that none of what Pro mentions changes the situation. Whether or not the women is poor or young, the situation stays the same.

Rape, however, is unique, and yet the situation for the unborn is still the same. See, the analogy only fails on Pro because he assumes it's an analogy of something it's not. It represents pregnancy, not abortion. Anyone who's read a number of Abortion debates understand the significance of the Violinist, and countering it quickly.

Pro presumes the women must keep the child after the pregnancy... However, just like in the analogy, she can walk away and never deal with the child. Adoption is perfectly legal, and free for her to perform. Pro drops my case on Rape.

The fetus is certainly alive. It fulfills it's Characteristics strongly. Pro only sticks to two Characteristics (excretion and breathing) which I have reassured the voters the fetus does fulfill in full. By Pro's own framework and in his acceptance of P1 and P2, as well as the UNDHR and 14th Amendment, I have proven that Abortion is a violation of those rights.

The unborn, being human, has the right to life. This Right, like it is for all humans, is stronger than bodily autonomy (which the fetus also has), the right to monetary security, and the right to emotional happiness.

Pro's own framework, which he contradicts and rejects when it's convenient, declares me the winner.



OBV 1: There is something important I would like to note which is my opponent’s source dishonesty. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, I think what my opponent does is unacceptable and extremely unfair which I will briefly mention before making my counter rebuttals.

I find it unacceptable that now, due to my opponent’s confusion with the sources I am unable to refute his point. If I made a claim with a source that provided no information on the topic at all, then I can’t refute the entire argument because there is a clear lack of evidence. There was no need for me to refute that point as if it was valid because the reality was that it was invalid. I shouldn’t have to refute in depth arguments that are bare assertions (which was what my opponent made it look like). I request that voters look at this carefully but I think that they should not view my rebuttal as a concession or anything comparable to it. I should not be penalized for having to check all of the sources. My opponent should be penalized for not checking his own sources. He should be checking his own arguments and not expect me to check them for him.

OBV 2: Pro claims that the term anti-choicers is disrespectful however this is untrue. I do not like to call those that disagree with abortion pro life either for similar reasoning. I am for abortion but I am just as Pro life as my opponent is. Whilst calling my opponent anti-choice may seem bad, I think that it is clearly more disrespectful to call (or at least imply) that one side in this debate is pro life and the other is not than to say that one is against choice and one is for. As pro has expressed throughout the debate, the right to life is more important than other rights.

Now that this has been said I’ll get onto my counter rebuttals.


Pro dismisses the entire argument presented in the framework as irrelevant since it is just a belief. However this is a massive mitigation of what the actual point of the framework was. The framework was the onset on which voters should be viewing the debate. Since they have not provided an onset with any explanation voters ought to by my framework and view his lack of rebuttal as a concession to the framework. Since I was the only debater to provide a framework (and say why abortion violates this framework),he loses by default. The lack of framework or rebuttal to my framework is problematic for my his case since under my framework (and the arguments presented with it) abortion is wrong and a violation of it. You ought to vote Con based on this premise alone due to the severity of the impact that the concession of it has on the debate.

Living Human

Pro still posts the wrong source for excretion however since they have informed me in R4 that the sources are in the wrong order (which makes things confusing for me), I will rearrange them myself and refute the argument as if my opponent posted the correct source - I’d like to stress the fact that this is something that I shouldn’t have to do, this was my opponent’s responsibility.

What prot describes as ‘excretion’ is false. Excretion isn’t just waste disposal. Excretion is the result of a long process. Excretion does not equate to waste disposal. In vertebrates (like humans), waste disposal is carried out by the lungs, kidneys and skin [1]. Humans are vertebrates [2]. Ergo, the fetus has to get rid of waste using the process of excretion that all vertebrates do. If my opponent believes that fetal excretion should occur differently for the fetus than the human, then my opponent concedes to the premise that the fetus is not human. Since I only need to refute one point in order to disprove the fetus as living [3], this rebuttal is sufficient to refute my opponent’s entire argument made.

Illegal Abortions

Pro exaggerates the statistic here. It was never said that the statistic presented was specific to third world countries. It was said that it was specific to the world.

Pro speaks of pre - Roe v Wade and how the statistics for illegal abortion related deaths were low. He does, however, fail to account for the many factors that have changed since 1972. Women's rights feminists have increased by approximately 400% since the early 1970s [4]. Statistics show that the majority of women in the US believe that abortion is a fundamental right. Logically, if more people are viewing abortions as rights for woman then the ratio of illegal abortions will increase and as a result the ratio of deaths will also increase (violating the framework because there will be more deaths). The undeniable fact that more people die from illegal abortions than legal ones is also one that he fails to refute. This violates the framework that we are forced to accept due to his concession.

Pro fails to understand how libertarians value life. Life isn’t measured by percentages, life is measured by the amount rather than the percentage. If 100 million people died suddenly the percentage in terms of the world population would be small however that doesn’t mean that the deaths were in small quantity. Under libertarianism, regardless of how small the percentage is, they do not necessarily look at this, they look at the numbers and value the individual [5].

Again, my pro’s comparison between legal abortions and the deaths they caused pre - Roe v Wade is misleading. Studies conclude that there is no official number of illegal abortions in the US (contrary to my worldwide statistic), ergo negating pro’s argument in regards to success rate percentage comparisons. It is impossible to determine (in terms of percentages), how good abortions were compared to illegal abortions [6].

Something extremely important to note is that Pro does not refute a major point. If so many illegal abortions are occurring then there will be no major difference by making it illegal. Making it illegal will cause illegal abortions (as my opponent concedes) and therefore making abortion illegal will have no major difference to the current law as it is.

Teen Health

Pro states that my statistics are misleading but fails to explain why. There is no evident reason presented as to why voters should buy pro’s statistics over mine.

It is true that the EITC pays $55,000 yearly however in comparison this is not a particularly large sum of money. This does pay for approximately 20% of the money needed however that still leaves the mother needing approximately $200,000 over the period of 18 years to pay for that child.

Pro assumes that everybody will be using techniques to reduce the cost of their food. Can he guarantee that everybody is going to use these cost effective methods? Can he prove that 50% will? 20%? 10%? The answer is no. This is bare assertion. We cannot know how many people will do this and by assuming that everybody can just do this is very assertive.

Adoption is not the option. 135,000 children are adopted per year [7]. There are approximately 1.2 million abortions performed per year [8]. There is clearly a larger demand for abortions than adoption. If only 135,000 people are open to adopt children per year then you cannot ban abortions and promote 1.2 million to put them all up for adoption. This clearly an unrealistic comparison.

Women’s Rights

He completely misunderstands the purpose of the contention. The purpose was to show that philosophically speaking abortions should be considered as rights and also it shows that the people with, arguably, the most say, agree that abortions are permissible. It is not a literal interpretation of equality. Men cannot have abortions however men do have the right over their body and women should be able to as well. Saying that it is not gender equality just because it isn’t literally the same then

There is no framework contradiction as he falsely says. He fails to understand that libertarianism doesn’t like restriction but it prioritizes the rights of the individual as well. If the individual's rights are not being prioritized then it is better to put more restriction in order to keep individual equality, a key teaching under libertarian ideology [5].


I dislike the fact that pro chooses to interlock contentions. Of course, the contention rests on whether or not the fetus is living. But we obviously disagree. Everybody has the right to mental happiness (hence why it is a universal human right). I have already negated the fact that the fetus is not living and it is not human. As a result, it does not have the right to life, whereas the mother does have the right to mental satisfaction. The abortion may not necessarily help the rape victim but they never willing consented to sexual intercourse and forcing them to have a pregnancy can have extremely detrimental effects. This is a massive restriction which violates the only debate framework that we have, libertarianism.

Pro misunderstands collectivism and individualism. Individualism does not say that 1 life is preferable to 2 or more. It says that they are equal. They prioritize the worth of the individual and prioritize them. Collectivism prioritizes groups in society meaning that they view would be in agreement with individualism. They both agree that lots of people are the equivalent to one - just for different reasons.


Thank you Donald.Keller for an amazing debate. This has definitely been one of my favorite debates. I have refuted pro’s points and I have defended mine. This is an objective win for Con, the resolution is negated.








[7] Jones, Jo. “Who Adopts? Characteristics of Women and Men Who Have Adopted Children.” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2009.

Debate Round No. 4
116 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
I thought there would be much more views.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago

I cast an RFD in favor of DK, but I'll tell you this: neither of the voters is biased by any means. Yes, they have a position on this topic, but that does not automatically mean bias -- that's nonsense. Hayd is an awesome judge -- read some of his previous RFD's -- and while I haven't read any of Balacafa's RFD's except this one, this one was pretty strong too.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
Feel free to check both of the voters past votes. They both seem to conceal their true opinion on the matter on all of their votes - even the ones where they vote against the side that they believe in.

They are concealing their view so that they don't have to wast e their time discussing with people whether or not they were bias (which happens quite a lot if you state your opinion and then you honestly believe that the side that shares the same view as you wins).
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Nah, I won't say anything about their votes. It would be kind of pointless anyway. That said, people really should write down who they agreed with before they vote unless they truly haven't picked a side. Everyone is a little biased no matter what and the people who debate should be made aware of that. I don't care who doesn't do this, I am just saying that it it is dishonest to hide your view on the matter when voting.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
Hardly anybody puts their position on the issues when voting. I don't do that either when I'm voting on a debate. The reason is so that I'm not accused of bias and virtually all voters vote in this manner. when whiteflame (one of the sites most active and detailed voters) votes he never puts down his position so that he isn't accused of bias when there clearly isn't any. The same is done for nearly all members of the voter's union.

If you really believe that the votes are bad then feel free to go through them but your reasoning is baffling. Hardly any voters ever put down their position on the issue (feel free to validate this by look at virtually ALL major voters votes).
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
A red flag went up when the voters indicated in their vote that they did not have a position on the matter. They obviously do and it was dishonest of them to not say that they agreed with con.

That said, I have only voted on six debates with one of my votes taken down (not explained). But aside from that, I do not really care that they are for abortion but the fact that they were not honest about it put up that red flag. So that is why I took a closer look at what they wrote.

I can go into their votes if you would like...But it will take a day due to my hectic schedule.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
If your only reasoning was because they are for abortion and are atheists then that's ridiculous. Do you think that they should have automatically voted Pro because their beliefs happen to fall in line with mine - the answer should be no. They are required to read and analyse the debate and vote as to who performed better. The fact that you claim that because they votes for me and they also agree with my position means that they are bias is worrying (especially since you are voting on quite a few debates).
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
Both the voters were votes from the voters Union which is set up by Pro. They were both extensive votes and they are both amongst the sites greatest and most active voters. Please indicate where the bias is in the RFDs because I certainly don't see it. Both voters clearly spent a lot of time on their votes and it's very unfair to dismiss them as bias without any reasoning.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
I would not be disappointed if I was Pro. Three atheists who were each for abortion voted for Con. The votes were obviously biased even though the voters dishonestly indicated that they didn't agree with one or the other before the debate.

That said, Pro certainly has some good arguments here.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
It was not finished.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to give this a tie because I cannot finish in 38 minutes. My vote is Pro. Maybe little later I might give some feedback. The main reasons are basically Con attacks Pro's sources, I might give sources to him, but Con's framework contradicts himself, and Pro did fairly good rebuttals in fetus is not alive or alive part. Reading Con's last round, he did a fairly good job. I give my vote to Con, and I will explain that in a document later on.
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 years ago
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: This is a very very very rushed vote, thus it might be confusing. I will clarify when I get home. I was leaning Pro the entire debate until the end.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote given on behalf of the Voter's Union: