There are times both in which abortion should and should not be allowed
Debate Rounds (4)
I am arguing that there are certain times when abortion is wrong and should not be done, and there are times that it is acceptable. Con will try to prove that it is either always acceptable or always wrong.
- Obviously, there will be no attacks on people and no anger. We are debating, not having an online shouting match (as happened between some idiots in my third period today but in person).
- Any form of argument may be used, however I would discourage con from using a solely religious argument because that has absolutely no effect on some people, however I may still consider them if they feel they must use them.
- Burden of proof is shared
- First round is acceptance, clarification of position, and whatever else con feels necessary but no arguments to make sure that we both have 3 argument rounds.
- If Con has a problem with any rule it will be resolved in the comments section so that we don't wast the debate arguing about rules
- Any accusations of a logical fallacy must be supported
- Follow basic rules of debating politeness
Happy debating! :)
As per the rules, I will make one clarification of position here in the form of a definition of Abortion.
Abortion: An operation or other procedure (including ingestion of abortifacient pills such as RU-486) conducted with the primary intention being the death of the zygote, embryo or fetus.
As further clarification on this definition in the form of an example. Undergoing chemotherapy while pregnant. The purpose of chemotherapy is not to kill the child, but rather to save the life of the mother. Thus the death of the child in this case would not be classified as an abortion.
This concludes the my opening round and I pass the debate back to Pro to provide the opening arguments.
At the root level, aborting a baby is taking away a chance at a life, a friend to others, the potential for growing other people who the baby would have met over the course of its life. In general, people will usually have a positive impact on the people they meet, whether it is because of constructive criticism, a friendship, or even being antagonistic, because then someone can learn to deal with such people, who will be met often no matter where they go. People can have negative impacts on other people, and most do at some point, but as a social species we are far more often positively impacted when meeting new people than negatively impacted. Therefore, a potential life being thrown away and the positive impacts that that life would have on other people will often outweigh a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, especially since she will also be impacted by such a baby.
However, there are times in which the birth of a child will cause suffering rather than happiness and building of people. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then the woman will have a hard time looking at her child, knowing that that is the child of someone who hated her. The child will grow up with an unprepared mother, no father, and knowing that they were not only a mistake, but completely unwillingly created. Both mother and child will likely lead terrible lives after that event.
I am not just throwing my thoughts around, there have been studies shown that prove that a child with only one parent will not usually be as happy as a child with two. Logically flowing from that are the points I made.
Those are two circumstances that I believe are different morally in that in one it would be fine to abort the baby, and in the other it would not be fine.
My thanks to Pro for the opening arguments.
To consider whether abortion should be allowed we must consider what an abortion does and what are the ethical considerations involved.
As Gregory Koukl stated, "If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate." 
A zygote the beginning of a new human being.  From this stage onward a new human organism exists, one which we all had to pass through to arrive at our current level of development. So we are not debating the justification of creating or not creating a new human in various conditions. What we are debating is the whether or not a human being has a right to its own life dependent on the circumstances either she or her mother will face now or in the future.
I posit that we live in a world that has come to realize the inherent and inalienable rights of humanity. This moral equality is the This was most famously penned in the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One cannot pursue happiness if one does not have a right to liberty and one cannot have liberty if one does not have a right to life. And it is this right to life that is being dismissed if people accept that there are times in which abortion should be allowed.
Thus, if the belief that there are inalienable human rights is true then it must be equally applied to all humans. If I do not murder an adult, or a toddler because of difficulties in life then it is hypocritical and immoral to do so to an unborn child for the same reason.
What makes it easy to argue for the deaths of the unborn instead of the born is that they are faceless and voiceless to protect themselves. Even a newborn can be seen as being human and its cry for help be heard. The unborn being afforded no such interaction with the world are thus easy to dehumanize into objects with scientific terms like fetus and embryo. Thus the parents, and particularly the mother, are viewed as owning the child instead of being the natural guardian(s) of the child.
Abortion is a procedure that unjustly takes the life of a human child.
Pro's arguments are as follows:
1) Humans interact with society. This provides positives for society. The positives for society are greater than the woman's right to choose.
2) If a woman a raped, she will be reminded of the rapist when looking at the child. The child will grow up with unloving parents (if there are indeed 2 parents). Both mother and child will live terrible lives as a result.
Neither of these arguments are based in any kind of moral reasoning, but mere supposition and appeals to emotion.
The first error in argument 1 is that aborting a baby is taking away a chance at a life...". It is taking a human life, not taking a chance at a life.
Pro then continues to assume that our inherent value is contingent on our interaction with others. Now while it is true that our societal interactions can be positive for society, this belief would make it justifiable to kill hermits or the homeless who choose not to interact with others.
Pro further states that this positive effect on society overrides the woman's right to choose. This is an absurd statement. One could argue that you should be able to have your kidney forcibly taken from you to help another person who is dying because this other person's interaction and interactions from his relieved family members will be a net positive to society. This is a clear violation of bodily rights would not be accepted as being just as it violates Natural Law. Your kidney is your kidney. Its function is to filter your blood for your good. Now just because it can be re-purposed to do something else does not make forcing you to do so moral, even if the end of such an action is a good thing.
This whole argument is merely appealing to peoples emotions for a happy society.
This sounds good if one reduces women to simple 2 dimensional caricatures. Dr. Sandra Mahkorn has done to my knowledge the only study on women who were pregnant as a result of rape. She studied 37 victims, 28 chose to give birth, 5 chose to abort, 4 left the study.
The study actually stated that women who abort actually suffer more than those who don't:
“Because it is likely that the victim already harbors feelings of guilt as a result of the assault, medico – social pressures which encourage and result in abortion could compound the woman’s feelings of guilt and self blame [over the abortion itself]… Perhaps as a result of their own biases and an unwillingness to deal with the more emotionally difficult complications of a pregnant rape victim, many physicians suggest abortion in this case as one would prescribe aspirin for tension headache… While on the surface this “suggestion” may appear acceptable and even “humane” to many, the victim is dealt another disservice. Such condescending [”quick fix”] attitudes on the part of physicians, friends and family can only serve to reaffirm the sense of helplessness and vulnerability that was so violently conveyed in the act of sexual assault itself. At a time when she is struggling to regain her sense of self-esteem, such a “take charge” attitude can be especially damaging. Often the offer of such “quick and easy” solutions as abortion only serve those who are uncomfortable or unwilling to deal with the special problems and needs that such complications as pregnancy might present." 
Her paper also stated that women made pregnant by rape did not abort and said that hostile and negative feelings towards the baby changed during pregnancy.
One of the reasons for this was that the women sensed "that if they could get through the pregnancy they will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed she can nurture."
Additionally, women have referred to abortions as medical rape.
“The abortion itself was the worst part of the experience. I experienced it as a real violation, almost a rape... She had been raped before, so she does not make the analogy lightly.” 
"...it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body." 
The only actual studies performed on rape victims who have become pregnant shows that women recover better when they have the child than when they don't. What they really want is for people around them to be there and strengthen them. They don't want to be shamed by those close to them who just want the problem to go away and get back to their own lives while pretending it never happened.
I have clearly shown that abortion is impermissible based on human rights and that Pro's arguments are fallacious. Thank-you and I pass the debate back to Pro.
 Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7
 Keith L. Moore. The Developing Human: Critically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA Saunders, 2003. pp. 2.
 Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.
As Con has taken the Pro-life side, I will assume that I no longer need to argue that there are cases in which abortion is not ethical, as we are in agreement on that; so I will not rebut any of your rebuttals to my statements saying that abortion can be unethical.
Part I: Rebuttals to Arguments
1: "From this stage onward a new human exists"
To rebut this I will begin with an analogy. Imagine that there is a line, one end is red and the other end is blue. The colour gradually fades, creating shades of purple in the middle. The point at the far red side is still the beginning of the line that ends as blue, but the line is clearly not blue. The same principle can be applied to a fetus, in the beginning it is just a clump of cells, then grows into a few body parts, gradually progressing to a point at which it is obviously human. However, I do agree that after only a few weeks (once the fetus or embryo can feel pain) it is indeed a human, otherwise I would think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion whatsoever.
2: "One cannot pursue happiness... ...to do so to an unborn child for the same reason"
These entire premise of these two paragraphs is that a zygote is already a human, as I have proven above is potentially false, and I will prove later that it is actually false.
Part II: Rebuttals to Rebuttals
It is unnecessary to rebut the rebuttals to argument 1 and the two statements before it, because both sides are in agreement that there are at least some cases in which abortion is immoral.
2: Study of rape victims
The study that Con mentioned was too small to accurately describe overall if it is more painful to give birth to the child or abort it, as there were effectively only 33 participants, and especially since only 5 chose to abort. Not all women can be summarized by a comparison of 28 to 5. However, the odds are still in favour of it being correct (in general), so I will provide an example of a situation in which abortion would be best for both mother and child in my arguments section.
Part III: New arguments
1: A situation where abortion would be an act of mercy
Up until now my rebuttals have seemed to concede. If I was arguing for total Pro-Choice, I would have searched for vague answers that are not accurate and would be more of a last-ditch effort to prove my point. However, I am arguing that there are cases in which abortion should be allowed and cases in which it should not, so the fact that I did not disprove some of your points does not cost me the debate.
Birth defects such as neural tube defects can be identified while the baby is still in the first trimester. These defects, along with several other kinds, are impossible for the baby to survive when born. My examples, neural tube defects, occur when the skull doesn't form correctly and often causes the brain (or parts of it) to be outside of the skull. It is untreatable and not survivable.
In a case where an embryo or fetus has a lethal birth defect, it only makes sense to abort it, rather than forcing it to be carried for 9 months with this, and then be born only to have their brain painfully destroyed. For the mother as well, it is arguably more traumatizing to see your baby die in its first minutes of being born, in a very graphic manner, even than abortion. An abortion in the case of this or another defect that a baby cannot survive out of the womb with would save both mother and child much suffering.
2: Humans are sentient
For something to be a human and have rights as one, it must be alive, and it must be self-conscious. Nothing can be self-conscious without a brain, as the electron signals through the brain are what cause thought, and self-consciousness requires thought. Therefore, even though we can't read minds and so don't know the exact time that a baby is conscious, we do know that a baby definitely has no consciousness until it has a brain that is at least partially developed.
Although the exact time that the baby is capable of thought is unknown, by 8 weeks the brain is sufficiently developed to allow some movement. To avoid any guessing over the time, I will assume that the baby is conscious at a little past 8 weeks, since the parts of the brain for thought and emotion are more complex than the parts for motor control. As this source clearly testifies, an abortion is possible to be done before this time.
Although I have not proven all of Con's rebuttals incorrect, I have proven that there are cases in which abortion will be a better alternative to giving birth. For this reason I encourage you to vote Pro!
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (Mainly the end of the second page and beginning of the third)
My thanks to Pro.
Defence of Argument
Pro has claimed that I have taken the Pro-Life side and that is true, but not exclusively so. While my counter argument was Pro-Life, I showed than neither Pro-Life nor the Pro-Choice arguments presented were valid.
As I stated in my opening argument:
If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.
I laid out this dichotomy that Pro completely failed to address.
Unborn are Human
I have given a valid definition from an embryology book that attests to the fact that the zygote developmental stage is factually when a new human organism comes into being. Instead of refuting this claim with any scientific claim or knowledge to the contrary, Pro attempts to refute scientific fact with an imaginary blending of colours that represents the developmental stages of the unborn child. He is basing his opinion on whether the child looks human, kinda like people did with blacks a couple hundred years ago. Would this mean that the children of Thalidomide weren't human because they didn't look like us? Or does this mean that those who are more developed have greater rights than those who do not, because development doesn't cease at the vaginal passage. Babies and youths, and even teens would not deserve equal rights. The unborn either is or is not human. We know from DNA that it is a unique human organism.
Pro didn't question the validity of humans having inalienable rights. Since Pro has failed to discredit the fact that the unborn are individual distinct human beings and did not disagree with the concept of fundamental human rights, my argument stands in its entirety.
Argument 1 - Human Interaction with Society
Pro completely failed to address the two counter arguments to his reasoning that the rights of the child can override the rights of the mother. He based this on the positive influence that a child can have on society.
As such he has failed to uphold his argument why abortion is sometimes wrong.
Argument 2 - Bad Future for Mother and Child when Rape Involved
Here I went really soft on Pro. Instead of noting that the circumstance of life have nothing to with the intrinsic moral value of the child, I instead showed that the totality of scientific studies on this topic show just the opposite conclusion.
Since Pro had no countering studies to the effect, his only response was that the study was of a small sample size. Yet the sample size was small because there were few women that she could find that had become pregnant through rape.
However, Pro's premise is that if certain circumstances are not met, the child's life is not worth living. Once again this is contradictory to the premise of fundamental human rights and equality of people.
Logically if you can kill someone who isn't going to have an ideal life then you should be allowed to kill someone who isn't having an ideal life. So the poor, homeless, heartbroken, war refugees have logically lost any right to live.
And finally how do we determine how good of a life is worth living. Do you need to have 2 parents? Do you need to have a Ivy League college fund? State college fund? New car? Own a house? Rent a house? Not living on food stamps? Please tell me which life is not worth living, and I'll almost guarantee that there are users on this site who have lived through those conditions. Then tell me their life has no value.
This whole argument like the one before is completely subjective and without basis in logic or fact. It is merely an appeal to emotions, and as such this argument has been disproven.
Argument 3 - Act of Mercy
So once again Pro is applying a completely subjective criteria. He is assuming that certain lives are simply not worth living. Thus one's right to life is dependent on one's potential to live a long life. So logically someone who can live to 100 should have more rights than one who can only live to 50 who should have more rights than one who can only live to 10 should have more rights than someone who can only live to day 3.
Once again this is a fundamental rejection of fundamental and inalienable human rights. One person saying that another's life is not worth living under certain circumstances. In fact, Pro is attempting to claim that how the mother may feel is why she has the right to murder her unborn child. That is like arguing that because the plantation owner may have his finances adversely affected that he has a right to enslave some blacks. inalienable rights must be upheld as true rights even when, or perhaps especially when, they are difficult to uphold. As such no one has the right to murder an innocent human being.
Argument 4 - Sentience
Pro is arguing that development of sentience is the point of delineation for when abortion is or isn't permissible. This argument for partial right to abortion is defeated by both the Pro-Life and Pro Choice arguments.
Since sentience is not yet realized at birth, philosophers like Peter Singer will argue that even infanticide is permissible . The cow you eat for dinner shows greater signs of sentience than a new born. Thus since you can kill and eat a cow there is no reason that you couldn't kill a human newborn. So obviously, arguing that a lack of actualized sentience permits some abortions would also mean that it is always permissible to abort. This completely destroys Pro's argument.
The Pro life refutation of this argument would counter that personhood is best described by the philosopher Boethius:
A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature. 
A substance maintains its identity through change. Thus you are you at all times from fertilization onward as your identity as the same orgainism remains constant.
Additionally, rationality (and thus sentience) is not something that is added to a human by the mother or some other agent, but is rather an inherent attribute of humans that expresses itself to a greater degree over time. Thus rationality is not from the outside, but from the inside. This means that the nature of humans is to be rations creatures.
I previously established that the unborn are humans, and since humans have a rational nature, humans are persons at every stages of life. As such the Pro-Life argument would preclude abortion at every stage of life based on the unborn being persons at every stage of life.
Thus by making the sentience argument, Pro has lost the debate because by using sentience as the dividing line one is forced to take the arguments to their conclusions. If actualized sentience is the criteria, then even the killing or newborns is permissible. If merely having a rational nature that will express the inherent sentience through the stages of development is what makes us persons, then abortion is never permissible.
I have defended my original arguments and clearly shown why each of Pro's arguments fails to substantiate his argument. Furthermore, I have shown why Pro arguing that the development of sentience is the dividing line between permissibility and impermissibility of abortion has actually caused him to lose the entire debate. This is true because the only logical conclusions derived from this line of argument are that abortion is always permissible or never permissible.
I thank Pro and look forward to his concluding round.
 Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis, ch. 3
The majority of Con's statements in the last round were rebuttals to things that had already been rebutted and not defended from my first argument. No new ground was gained there.
The rest of the rebuttals were simply rebutting my points that didn't really matter, and in fact I will be the first to admit that they weren't strong. However, my other point stands.
"A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature"
And, pray tell, in what way does a zygote have a rational nature without even having a brain? Con claimed that even a zygote is a human, and has used this quote that proves that false. The brain is not even the first thing to begin developing, so there is plenty of time to abort it before the brain is made.
An interesting sentence Con said was "We know from DNA that it is a unique human being", the "it" referring to the zygote, embryo, or fetus. If this is true, then an extension following Con's logic is as follows: A human is anything that is made of human DNA. Sperm and ovum are made up of human DNA. Sperm die when a person with a male body masturbates (I apologize for the crude example), ovum die when someone has a period. Therefore, masturbating or having a period is infanticide, as well as cutting yourself (even though that's not good), swabbing your mouth for DNA, spitting, and a plethora of other things, because you are detaching cells from your body to die.
My point for that whole last paragraph is that since a zygote is simply a clump of cells, it is not a human, at least not in the moral sense. There is no reason to think that killing a few cells is immoral, clearly the zygote is not alive until it has at least a partially developed brain. I do not mean alive in the scientific sense, I mean it as in a being that is conscious, and alive is the closest word to describe that. Conscious is also better word to describe it than sentient, because it is obvious that babies are conscious, whether or not they are sentient.
What is the problem with killing something that doesn't have a brain? Is it any worse to have an abortion while still in zygote stage than to mow your lawn? After all, neither the zygote or the grass is conscious, and if anything the grass is more conscious than the zygote.
Con also stated that I still need to prove that abortion is immoral in some circumstances. They then proceeded to rebut the arguments that were from my first post yet again, making the argument more redundant than it already was. The reason that I do not need to prove that abortion is immoral in some circumstances is because we are both trying to argue that, at least, there are times in which abortion is immoral, or more specifically, should not be allowed. This still stands whether or not Con is exclusively Pro-Life. However, if I were to prove that it is always fine to abort, then I would have still lost. Attempting to prove my Pro-Life arguments wrong as well as my Pro-Choice arguments is redundant, although Pro-Choice isn't an accurate description because I am not arguing for a woman's right to her body.
As Con stated, I did not directly do anything with their dichotomy. However, I do not agree with it, as even if a zygote is considered human since it has cells that only belong to Homo sapiens, it is still as unconscious as a skin cell.
However, the largest mistake in Con's argument is that they failed to provide an adequate response to my main point, the situations with babies that have lethal birth defects. This does not have to do with it having rights or not, or that its life isn't worth living, it is simply stating that it will not HAVE a life, and will instead either be aborted sooner or die in more pain later. It is not even about living to day three, if a baby is born with its brain outside of its head it will die in seconds or at best minutes. The only time that it lives outside the womb will be in more pain than abortions in early stages cause.
I would like to emphasize again that Con mostly ignored my last argument, and instead continued to attack my first argument and the points that were of little value.
Con, thank you for an interesting debate, it was quite enjoyable.
With that, I encourage all of you to vote Pro!
My thanks to Pro for his concluding arguments.
I must admit that Pro is mostly correct when he said that the majority of my rebuttals from the last round were refuting points he had made in the first round. That is because he introduced almost no new arguments, but instead tried to give analogies that showed that the unborn weren't humans before a certain age. These notions were quickly abused and laid to rest along with the new arguments that were presented.
Pro made several final points.
In the previous round I noted the definition of Personhood by Boethius:
A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature. 
Pro questioned what is a rational nature. I believe that I can confidently state that we humans are rational creatures. When we have children, there is every expectation that they too will eventually express a similar rationality. This is not something that happens by accident or randomly, but rather is the normative developmental trajectory of humans. This is because we have a rational nature, unlike trees don't have rational natures; because trees do not naturally express rationality (my apologies to any Ents reading this discussion). I had noted in the previous round that rationality is something that develops from within the organism and not something that is implanted by the mother or some other agent.
Pro questions my assertion that because the unborn human organisms have human DNA that they are human. He then goes on to mention sperm and ovum, and noting that they die during masturbation or periods.
Sperm and eggs are actually haploid cells of the parental organism (mother and father). These each have half the usual number of chromosomes.  These are specialized cells designed to join with the counterpart of the opposite sex in order to form a new organism of the same species. Without combining a sperm or an ovum can never grow into an adult of the species. Heck they can never reach the embryonic stage. That is because they are not organisms, but merely specialized cells - like every other tissue or organ cell in your body being specialized.
Cells in your body have your DNA. The unborn do not have your DNA they have their own unique DNA. And while every cell of a human organism has DNA, only the zygote cell is an organism unto itself.
In this counter-argument Pro goes on to assert that the unborn are not human in the moral sense until there it is consciousness, "because it is obvious that babies are conscious, whether or not they are sentient."  In fact pro goes on to state that mowing the grass is morally equivalent (or perhaps worse) than killing a human zygote (the most elementary stage of human life).
Well first off, when I mow the lawn doesn't actually kill the Kentucky Blue Grass, but merely reduces the biological mass of the plant. An abortion kills the zygote. Thus he is equating harm to a plant over death to a human zygote. I quibble here, but just making note of the non-equivalency as presented.
However, actually dealing with his argument. Let's make it stronger than he presented. Let's talk about the cow that eats the grass (which means I don't have to mow it). Now this cow obviously has consciousness. I don't think that is in question. Now I can kill this conscious cow and eat it. Heck the spider that crawls across the floor that I stepped on was also conscious. If I am able to do that then why not a baby? Obviously there must be something about the baby other than consciousness that makes it valuable.
This is just hunting for a reason that permits abortion. Yet all of these reasons are reduced to being human AND some other characteristic.
Human AND male
Human AND caucasian (or specifically not black).
Human AND not Jewish
Human AND conscious
See how good we are at creating reasons that permit us to enslave, dominate and kill some particular group by not recognizing the obvious fact that they are as equally human as the rest of us? Pro's consciousness argument doesn't hold water because it cannot be equally applied to all creatures that possess consciousness.
Sometimes Right - Sometimes Wrong
Pro questions why I bothered to fully refute his "Pro-Life" argument stating: "we are both trying to argue that, at least, there are times in which abortion is immoral, or more specifically, should not be allowed" 
I refuted it because it was faulty logic and he has to show that there are both times that it is and isn't permissible. His reasoning gave no defensible reason not to allow abortion, only an appeal to emotion or possible outcomes. This has nothing to do with rights and intrinsic moral value and is thus null and void as I showed.
Lethal Birth Defects
Pro claims that I failed to respond to his argument on lethal birth defects. However, I believe that I fully addressed it under "Acts of Mercy" in the previous round. Yet I will address it again as he does not believe that I did so.
Pro is essentially arguing that if the unborn will not have a good quality of life we should kill it and that its rights do not matter. So here we assume that rights are REALLY not rights if you're not as well as others. So, the argument is that, if you've had a bad accident or will suffer a brain aneurysm in the next 2 hours, we can just rescind your rights and kill you on the spot.
However, this is a slippery slope among other things. Who gets to decide how good of a life is worth living? Is life itself and its meaning a mystery that each of us get for our time we are alive whether long and glorious or short and feeble. It is really playing God.
Now none of us like to see someone in pain, and we live in a society with unprecedented means of dealing with pain. However, I contend that the only way to value the inalienable rights that we have is to respect them in every human. We are charged with loving and protecting them, and to be with them even in the short harsh lives that they may live. If you live to a 100, are president, and have grand kids, do you have any greater right to life that the child that may only live an hour outside of its mother's womb? Is this poor child not just as worthy of its mother's gentle caress as you are? I contend that it is hypocritical to argue otherwise.
Pro has failed to substantiate either side of his argument. I've shown that his arguments are based on appeals to emotion, and a denial of rights through discrimination based on size and development of the unborn. What he has presented is neither logically consistent nor reasonable in application. The majority of the arguments made were about outcomes instead of rights. We do not have a right to a particular outcome, but what we do have as human beings are fundamental human rights. The foremost of these rights is the right to life.
I have presented a Pro-Life view for the majority of my arguments. This is consistent and grounded in fundamental human rights. Con has never questioned the existence of these fundamental rights. I clearly showed that the unborn are biologically humans. Additionally, I gave sound reasoning as to why humans have a rational nature thus showing them to be persons right from fertilization. As such this argument has been completely substantiated and shows that every human has inalienable rights. This means that nobody has the right to end their life.
Finally I countered several arguments from the Pro Choice side at the same time as countering them from the Pro-Life side. This could be done because the arguments presented were not about rights, but rather appeals to emotion and desired outcomes.
Thus Pro has, in my opinion, failed to substantiate his argument in any way.
My thanks to InsaneSanity for the entertaining debate
 http://www.debate.org... Pro - Round 4.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.