Instigator / Pro
2
1502
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#2211
Legalized Abortion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
MisterChris
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description
Debate on Abortion Rights.
We will be covering the reasons to have a complete ban on abortion or have it legal for all stages of pregnancy, nothing in the middle.
Pro = Pro Choice, Con = Pro life
Round 1
Pro
#1
Opening Statement
Abortions do not kill. Logically and conceptually, abortions have one effect: to stop the fetus from being born. Logically and conceptually, if we are referring to whether or not a child will exist, then abortions have the exact same effect as condoms, birth control, and abstinence. My parents wearing a condom versus my parents aborting me produces the same result: I don’t exist. However, the difference is that one is latex and the other is extraction. Thus, one can not use the claim that abortion denied someone from existing as it is flawed and illogical. The only grounds to argue on is claiming that extraction is the same thing as killing a born child, in which there is little to no footing.
The pro-life argument at its core depends on only this one loose string. Whether or not life begins at birth is entirely apples and oranges; it can be argued both ways. There is plenty of evidence on why life begins on birth, and pro-lifers may be presenting evidence on why it doesn’t. However, is their only valid argument.
On the other hand, while pro-life depends on feelings, pro-choice largely centers around facts. A complete abortion ban has devastating consequences. What America has received from legalizing it includes (all of which will be addressed with supporting evidence later on):
-Decreased Crime+Murder Rates
-Decrease in domestic violence and abusive families
-Parents being able to choose to have children when they are prepared for it
-Decrease in ruined lives due to unintentional pregnancies
-Saves the cost of pregnancy and raising a child
-Helps people of lower economic statuses
-More women in the work force
-Reduces taxpayer costs
-Improved economy
-Helps with other issues such as systemic racism
However, there is only one con for legal abortions:
-Some people are offended by it (for moral/religious reasons pertaining to their feelings)
Undoubtedly, abortion has only helped society. To nullify all of that simply because one’s morals do not match another is unreasonable and absurd. The argument that abortion is murder is completely opinion-based and surrounds the concept of morals; however, pro-life tries to spin it off as facts and wants society to take the brunt of the blow. A ban would be catastrophic for many and the repercussions can not be ignored.
The Effect of Abortion on Crime
In 1966, a study in Sweden found that children born to women who were denied an abortion "turned out to have been registered more often with psychiatric services, engaged in more antisocial and criminal behavior, and have been more dependent on public assistance” (1972 Rockefeller Commission). The study looked at almost 200 children in a hospital whose parents could not get an abortion and compared each one to the child born directly after. The result found that unwanted children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, for example, with divorced parents or in a foster home. Growing up in environments where they are not loved nor cared about or born to parents who are not competent enough to raise them had increased the chances for them to be engaged in crime.
In 2001, John Donohue from Yale and Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago published a paper on “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime”. The study found that legalized abortion accounted for 45% of the sharp crime drop that happened in 1992. The methods of the study included noticing crime drops in all the states that had legalized abortions earlier before the other ones. Thus, researchers began isolating variables to weed out the true effect of legal abortions.
This research received heavy praise by scholars, however, there were a small number of critics too. However, the critics do agree that abortions accounted for a drop in crime, just that the percent abortion accounted for should be at around 30% rather than 45%.
Sources:
https://bit.ly/2Plm2xp (Harvard Professor Robert J. Barro on the 2001 study)
https://bit.ly/39TUM2t (Referenced Sources from the article: 2001 Donohue Levitt Study and the Sweden Study cited by the Rockefeller Commission)
Women in the workforce
Labor researcher David E. Kalist found that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies significantly increased the labor force participation of women, especially minority groups such as black females. By legalizing abortions, women could pursue their career and education rather than be forced to raise a child she is neither prepared for nor wants to have. Many other studies echo the results, including one done by the Center on the Economics of Reproductive health, which was peer-reviewed and analyzed by PhD researchers. These facts are conclusive and indisputable.
Source:
https://bit.ly/30s4Axu (Study done by David E. Kalist)
https://bit.ly/3fs60w8 (Study done by Bernstein and Jones)
Abortion’s effect on the Economy and Lower Class
75% of abortion patients were below the poverty line, along with 20% of abortions being done specifically because a pregnancy would be financially devastating for them. Access to abortions had significantly helped reduce poverty and improved the life of those in the lower economic class. Often times, the reduced crime rate means less economic toll due to crime and less incarcerated criminals. Also, federal spending on welfare is reduced, along with less competition for jobs and less unemployed.
Source: https://bit.ly/2D9Trsv (Conservative website, data used was taken from the Guttmacher Institute)
https://bit.ly/30t1ucy (Guttmacher Institute)
Effects of a ban on abortion
Around 18% of US pregnancies end in abortion. This figure, however, is less than the number of miscarriages, which is estimated to be more than 20%. In fact, 24% of women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Abortions are actually one of the safest procedures in medicine when done correctly, as it is 14 times safer than childbirth. However, this is when it is done correctly. When there is a ban on abortion, there will be illegal abortions done, which is oftentimes done using unsafe methods that result in severe damage and death. In fact, out of the 56 million abortions performed worldwide each year, 45% is done unsafely due to abortion bans in other countries. Modern abortions involve quick and painless extraction methods through surgery or medication, while illegal abortions done in countries with a ban oftentimes results in immense pain, trauma on the fetus, and from a religious perspective, is magnitudes times worse than a safe abortion. Methods include insertion of needles, clothes hangers, or trauma applied to the womb. Supporting an immediate ban means supporting widespread illegal abortions.
In fact, worldwide, an immediate complete ban on abortion is simply out of the question. Here is a chart with the graph of the level of strictness of an abortion ban in each country: https://ibb.co/5cGSr3t
This UN report shows that only one country in the world has a complete ban on abortion, and that is Nicaragua. As 7% of abortions are done due to fetal defects and maternal life, a complete ban is simply absurd. Nicaragua is currently run under a dictatorship, with doctors living in fear of arrest if they perform abortions. In fact, Nicaragua has an immensely high rate of maternal death during pregnancy and a high death rate due to gynecological emergencies, which otherwise could have been prevented and treated. Thus, no other country in the world has any sort of complete abortion ban; there will always be exceptions.
Chart of First/Second/Third World countries: https://bit.ly/3fpr0DX
Compare the chart above of first, second, and third world countries with the chart of areas where abortion is legal. A general imperfect trend can be made: countries with legal abortions are more often first or second world countries, while those with bans are most often third world. These third world countries with bans often times have significant illegal abortions performed and heavy poverty and crime rates. Though many other factors account for the countries being third world, a ban on abortion can be considered as a one, illustrating the effects a ban could have.
Sources: https://bit.ly/33Doxnd (Guttmacher Institute)
https://bit.ly/2PkPrHU (Wikipedia - Go down to references section to see sources used)
https://bit.ly/3kaZRrI (For the graph of first/second/third world countries)
Closing Remarks
With the evidence presented above, it is conclusive and indisputable that abortion has only a positive impact on society. Many of the arguments used by pro-life to point out the negative impacts of abortions are without evidence and baseless. For example, a theory that abortions effect mental health has been disproven many times.
Many pro-lifers believe that they are the administers of justice; that those who have sex should expect the risks of being pregnant and therefore must be punished with raising the child. However, as we have proven, abortions come from lower economic classes and bans would have undeniable consequences. Both sides agree that the well-being of society is a priority, and a ban would only diminish it. Does society deserve to face the blows for the sake of a few offended pro-lifers?
The pro-ban on abortion can be phrased down to this: abortion is against their own morals and therefore others should be forced under a ban too. Typically, if one believes a situation is immoral, they are entitled to not participate themselves, however, to force others out should not be something they can control.
The entire pro-life argument can be summarized as life begins at conception, thus it is murder. However, their only footing is quite loose: scientists do not know when life begins and cannot prove it, and to say otherwise is completely false in the scientific community. Their only argument is based on opinion, while mine is based on facts.
Con
#2
Thanks, vector and welcome to the site!
OBSERVATIONS:
PRO argues that abortion should be legal for all stages of pregnancy starting from conception. To illustrate how murderous such a proposal would be, CON will walk the voter through the stages of pregnancy.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
Considering that already 60 million people have been killed since Roe vs. Wade, PRO’s advocated expansion to include late-term abortions is just another nail in the coffin for the morality of abortion.
REFUTATIONS:
“ABORTIONS DO NOT KILL”
PRO attempts to frame the process of abortion as a process of preventive birth control, all in an attempt to claim that abortion technically does not kill.
- Under PRO’s short description: “We will be covering the reasons to have a complete ban on abortion or have it legal for all stages of pregnancy, nothing in the middle. Pro = Pro Choice, Con = Pro life” CON agrees to this limitation.
- THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION
PRO argues that abortion should be legal for all stages of pregnancy starting from conception. To illustrate how murderous such a proposal would be, CON will walk the voter through the stages of pregnancy.
- Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
- Within 16 days, the fetus has a detectable heartbeat. Within 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain. According to a NY Times article interviewing Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center: “If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.”
- “At 9 weeks after conception, a fetus is able to bend its fingers around an object in its hand, and sucks its thumb. All essential organs have begun to form.
- At 11 weeks, a fetus is breathing amniotic fluid steadily and will do so until birth.
- At 12 weeks, a fetus can kick, turn over, make a fist, open its mouth and press its lips together.
- At 13 weeks, a fetus’s vocal cords and auditory sense are present.
- At 20 weeks, a fetus can be startled by a loud external noise.
- At 23 weeks, a fetus can demonstrate rapid eye movements (REM). (And has become viable to live outside the womb.)
- At six months, fine hair grows on the fetus’s head and eyebrows, and small eyelashes begin to appear.
- At seven months, a fetus’s hands can support his entire weight.
- At eight months, a fetus weighs more than four pounds.
- During the ninth month from conception, a fetus gains half a pound per week. Of the 45 total generations of cell replication that will occur by mature adulthood, 41 have already taken place.”
In order to kill, there must be an actor and a victim.
The victim must be alive to start.
Under condoms, preventative birth control, and abstinence, there is an actor but there is no victim. Thus, none of those forms of birth control kill.
CON argues that PRO’s argument is inconsistent. While CON agrees that preventative birth control does not kill, PRO ignores that abortion is uniquely murderous, as it rips the existence away from an already existing child.
Planned Parenthood states that “suction abortion (also called vacuum aspiration) is the most common type of in-clinic abortion.” Followed by the claim it is a “gentle” process.
To put the reality mildly, the suction tears the body of the fetus apart and suctions the pieces through the tube(1). There is both an actor and a victim, and the victim is torn apart. That is killing, and CON argues this should fall under the definition of murder.
LIFE AT CONCEPTION
CON argues that life beginning at birth is a moot point because it is subjective and fickle.
PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.
CRIME & CONDITIONS:
CON does not dispute that unwanted children are more likely to grow up in adverse conditions. However, PRO unduly burdens the child with blame instead of the parent. PRO’s argument is that if you have bad parents, you do not deserve to live at all because you are more likely to be a criminal. However, this generalization obviously alienates all of the people that would have lived peacefully instead. CON argues that society should focus on promoting abstinence, preventive birth control, and improving conditions for children, and this problem will resolve itself.
Even still, CON argues that the effect of abortion on crime is quite negligible. The homicide rates freely fluctuate in Chicago, even increasing to near 1992 levels as of 2016.
While CON does not support his racial views, Steve Sailer elaborates on the inconsistencies of the study quite well:
“What about just black male youths? Since their mothers were having abortions at three times the white rate, their murder rate should have fallen spectacularly from 1984 to 1993. Instead it grew an apocalyptic 5.1 times.
Why, then, is this generation born in 1975-1979 now committing relatively fewer crimes as it ages? It makes no sense to give the credit to abortion. Instead, it's the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that largely drove crime first up, then down.”
WOMEN IN WORKPLACE:
The same results can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT:
PRO argues that a life is not worth living if it is done under the US poverty line. They proclaim the child’s case hopeless prematurely, snuffing out any chance for them to pursue the American dream. What’s worse, is that it is being done unnecessarily. The same economic benefits can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.
The economic and criminal benefits my opponent speaks of seem silly when compared to the price tag of 60 million people killed since Roe vs. Wade.
Furthermore, if all of those 60 million people were allowed to live, they would spend their money as consumers. That would have raked in an estimated “$200 trillion in their lifetimes. That’s money supporting businesses, driving industry, and creating jobs.”
ABORTIONS ARE SAFE (UNLESS DONE ILLEGALLY):
Advertising the ability to efficiently kill children may not be the best way to advocate for abortion in terms of ethics.
As for illegal abortions, CON argues that this objection does not resolve any moral objections to abortion. In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide at a toll of 42.3 million. Legalizing it for all would raise the death toll further. Compared to that of abortion subjects, there is no comparison.
Additionally, banning abortion would deter women from having one because most women are law-abiding. It would also pressure more use of abstinence, preventative birth control and orphanages to deter the need for abortion.
While it is true that some would try to have one anyway, an estimated 90% of illegal abortions are done by licensed physicians.
NICARAGUA AND THE UN REPORT:
PRO talks of the absurdity of a total abortion ban. Compare this to the absurdity of zero abortion restrictions like PRO advocates for. A baby 1 day before birth could be legally aborted.
Regardless, all PRO’s 1st world vs. 3rd world comparisons show is the degree of liberalism present in each country. Liberal countries tend to value freedom, and although they make exceptions for national safety/morality cases (as they should), they tend to let the people influence policy through democracy. This has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong morally.
CONCLUSION:
Life begins at conception, DNA proves it. Even if it didn’t, it would begin at some point along the journey to birth. PRO openly advocates for aborting all fetuses regardless of development, and has thus openly endorsed the killing of millions of people for the sake of a few questionable benefits. Vote CON.
Under condoms, preventative birth control, and abstinence, there is an actor but there is no victim. Thus, none of those forms of birth control kill.
CON argues that PRO’s argument is inconsistent. While CON agrees that preventative birth control does not kill, PRO ignores that abortion is uniquely murderous, as it rips the existence away from an already existing child.
CON does not dispute that unwanted children are more likely to grow up in adverse conditions. However, PRO unduly burdens the child with blame instead of the parent. PRO’s argument is that if you have bad parents, you do not deserve to live at all because you are more likely to be a criminal. However, this generalization obviously alienates all of the people that would have lived peacefully instead. CON argues that society should focus on promoting abstinence, preventive birth control, and improving conditions for children, and this problem will resolve itself.
Even still, CON argues that the effect of abortion on crime is quite negligible. The homicide rates freely fluctuate in Chicago, even increasing to near 1992 levels as of 2016.
While CON does not support his racial views, Steve Sailer elaborates on the inconsistencies of the study quite well:
“What about just black male youths? Since their mothers were having abortions at three times the white rate, their murder rate should have fallen spectacularly from 1984 to 1993. Instead it grew an apocalyptic 5.1 times.
Why, then, is this generation born in 1975-1979 now committing relatively fewer crimes as it ages? It makes no sense to give the credit to abortion. Instead, it's the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that largely drove crime first up, then down.”
WOMEN IN WORKPLACE:
ECONOMIC BENEFIT:
PRO argues that a life is not worth living if it is done under the US poverty line. They proclaim the child’s case hopeless prematurely, snuffing out any chance for them to pursue the American dream. What’s worse, is that it is being done unnecessarily. The same economic benefits can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.
The economic and criminal benefits my opponent speaks of seem silly when compared to the price tag of 60 million people killed since Roe vs. Wade.
Furthermore, if all of those 60 million people were allowed to live, they would spend their money as consumers. That would have raked in an estimated “$200 trillion in their lifetimes. That’s money supporting businesses, driving industry, and creating jobs.”
ABORTIONS ARE SAFE (UNLESS DONE ILLEGALLY):
Regardless, all PRO’s 1st world vs. 3rd world comparisons show is the degree of liberalism present in each country. Liberal countries tend to value freedom, and although they make exceptions for national safety/morality cases (as they should), they tend to let the people influence policy through democracy. This has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong morally.
- Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes, 2003. Page 83
Round 2
Pro
#3
OPENING
CON’s entire argument depends on one thing: abortion is classified as murder. However, to deem it as such is subject to one’s opinion and feelings. In order for CON to prove that abortion should be banned, they must prove:
- (a) Life begins at conception
- (b) Because of (a), it must equate to murder
- (c) Because of (b), all moral reasons outweigh all undeniable consequences of a ban
The CON’s argument begins to fall apart at the first step. CON even admits that only a majority of scientists believe that life begins before birth. To classify abortion as murder, all three points must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt [burden by law], and each point cannot be proven unless the previous point meets the burden. This means that any doubt or question raised that counters one of the three points will render CON as a failure in meeting the burden. I will give evidence that counters all three.
REFUTATIONS
1. Life Starts at Birth
In order to show that abortion is murder, CON must show undoubtedly that life begins before birth. If you have one shred of doubt, CON’s entire case falls apart.
Much of CON's argument is opinion and can be argued in reverse:
In Canada, a council of over 250 doctors presented evidence to Canada’s parliament endorsing “life begins at birth”. A common belief is that life begins when one gains consciousness. How can one be considered alive when one does not even know that they are? If I was aborted, I would have never known that I existed in the first place. Even alive right now, I remember nothing from the womb and it is conclusive no one else does either.
2. Abortion is NOT murder
Though it is clear that life can not be conclusively be determined to start before birth, CON must also prove that abortion is classified as murder beyond a reasonable doubt as that is the burden of proof in American law.
Baby Definition:
“A very young child, especially one newly or recently born”
Thus a fetus must be in a class of its own. As it is not even aware of its own existence, a fetus can not be considered equal to an alive human. Any counterargument is completely opinion-based even if prong #1 is proved (which it isn't). It is often believed being a human involves knowing that one exists in the first place. Thus, a fetus can not be considered as one.
Definition of murder:
“The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”
Thus to establish murder, one must establish a fetus as a human, which can not be conclusively determined and subject to opinion and therefore, impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
To further my case, take the chicken. It is not considered “murdering a chicken” if one eats the egg. In contrast, would everyone gladly slaughter a newly-hatched baby chicken? Chicken eggs are eaten on a daily bases, often multiple times by a single person, however, baby chickens are rarely eaten at all. Also, 30-50% of pregnancies end up in a miscarriage. Are there funerals for miscarriage fetuses yet? No, because they were never human in the first place. If any portion of this logic is agreed upon, one cannot classify abortions as murder.
3. Consequences of Abortion cannot be ignored
At this point, since it is impossible to classify abortion as murder, CON has no case at all as most of his refutations involve terms similar to “murder”. To further this, I will reiterate the consequences in response to CON’s refutation.
#1: Abortion lowered crime
As established previously, the Donohue-Levitt study concluded that 45% of the drop in crime is attributed to legal abortion. This study has only been refuted in a debate of others arguing the percent should be closer to 30%. Also, the study has been updated and relooked 18 years later and all conclusions still hold true.
The homicide rates freely fluctuate in Chicago, even increasing to near 1992 levels as of 2016.
The current spike is attributed to different reasons. The study conducted by Donohue-Levitt isolated variables to determine drop for what happened in 1992, which was different than today. On the other hand, this is not for crime but for homicides ONLY.
CON presented a source that tries to dispute the Donohue-Levitt argument. However, the source used is completely bogus and dedicated to ending christianity without regard to real facts. In fact, the source says “Stanford's John J. Donohue III” even though Donohue attended Yale and Harvard. Also, the source agrees: Donohue-Levitt did not go into the study with bias as they do not endorse abortion. Thus, the figures produced are agreeably correct.
#2 Women in the workplace
Abortion has increased women’s representation in the workplace. To this CON says:
“The same results can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.”
42% of those using condoms reported failures and breaks. 50% of women using abortion had used some form of contraception. In the United States, orphanages are for dead parents. In similar, adoption centers should not be abused by tripling the number of children in an already overflowing system. Children wait 2-7 years to get adopted, and tripling the wait time would make most children adults before they are adopted. Thus birth control and orphanages cannot be relied upon.
#3 Economy
I have established that abortion has only harmed those in poverty and brought down the economy. In response, CON claimed:
Furthermore, if all of those 60 million people were allowed to live, they would spend their money as consumers. That would have raked in an estimated $200 trillion in their lifetimes
A larger population does not equate to a stronger economy, such as India, a third-world country with a heavily impoverished population. In fact, that number, $200 trillion, had to come from somewhere that exists in the economy already. It had to be generated from a job or more likely considering demographics, from a crime. The job market is already limited on not being enough jobs and too many available workers. In countries with larger populations, the effects of this is evident: competition becomes suffocating, wages are lower for everyone, and the condition of life deteriorates. To sacrifice all of this simply for moral reasons? Thus that estimate only shows the harm on the economy, not benefit.
#4 Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions
In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide at a toll of 42.3 million. Legalizing it for all would raise the death toll further. Compared to that of abortion subjects, there is no comparison.
The source provided classifies each abortion as a death, which cannot be used as fetuses are not considered to be humans and therefore not a death. CON has tried to spin this as abortions leading deaths.
While it is true that some would try to have one anyway, an estimated 90% of illegal abortions are done by licensed physicians
The source presented by CON is applying for only the US, where most forms of abortions are legal already and thus people already have safe access to conduct them. There are not very many unsafe abortions in the US in the first place as it is legal. The fact that there are unsafe abortions already furthers the idea of many unsafe abortions performed once it becomes illegal.
In fact, if you look at stats from worldwide, 45% of worldwide abortions are done unsafely due to being illegal in third-world countries which need legal abortions the most as access to birth control and strong educations is infrequent. Bans would not significantly decrease total abortions; it will only increase unsafe abortions and poverty all for the name of morality.
#5 UN Report
Finally, the most important fact of the case: a complete ban on abortion is absurd. CON has provided no rebuttal to the UN report on how only Nicaragua, an impoverished country with a high preventable maternal death rate during pregnancy and preventable gynecological deaths, is the ONLY country with a complete ban. There were also no objections to the fact that countries with abortion restrictions were often third-world and impoverished, with abortion being a factor to a worse standard of life.
Remember: CON proposes a complete ban without exceptions. CON even agrees; a complete ban is absurd and unreasonable due to preventable painful maternal death and that abortion can’t even be considered murder.
The only counterargument presented by CON was that I proposed abortion for all stages. However, abortions conducted past 14 weeks are almost all due to fetal issues/maternal life. At this point, the parents want to have a child, however, the risks of pregnancy makes it a death sentence for an alive baby or an alive mother. Thus, indirectly, a complete ban on abortion can be attributed as preventable manslaughter, as for fetal cases, pregnancy is forced and a born baby is forced to die, while for maternal life, the mother is forced to die. In these cases, which count for 7% of abortions in America, a ban would be considered manslaughter, and most of these abortions happen during the later stages of pregnancy, even right before birth in only extreme cases involving certain loss of life.
Closing
As established, abortion is impossible to argue as murder, and thus, CON has no ground to argue upon.
Also established, a ban would have devastating consequences all for the sake of one’s moral reasons that stem from feelings and opinions.
Thus, if one wants to reduce abortions, the only choice to go is to increase access to birth control, improve education, encourage abstinence, and use other methods to prevent pregnancy. This has been working, as abortions have only been decreasing each year due to these reasons. Without it, a ban would not work; illegal abortions would still be rampant.
A complete ban thus will never work and a slow decrease in pregnancies is the only way to decrease abortions.
Con
#4
A/2 OPENING:
PRO opens by claiming that CON must prove definitively that life begins at conception or their entire case fails. Their argument is that if there even is a shred of doubt, a single scientist disputing the results, that CON can not win.
PRO has made the claim that we can not reasonably assume life begins at conception. However, they have given no evidence for that claim other than “we do not know for 100% certain.” To consider a claim true, we do not have to prove it with 100% certainty. We must prove it true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the legal standard that PRO distorts beyond recognition.
A/2 “1. Life Starts at Birth”
PRO says that 250 Canadian doctors believe that life begins at birth. CON hopes it is self-evident to voters that this view has no basis in evidence, nor does such a small share of opinions represent the most common view of doctors.
PRO then starts to argue that consciousness is the main marker for the start of human life.
Unfortunately for PRO, science has demonstrated that the baby is capable of consciousness while still in the womb, it is only asleep due to its environment.
“the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later... many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place.”
RECALL that PRO endorses abortion during any stage of pregnancy.
Additionally, if consciousness is the only marker of life, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or even asleep are “not alive” under PRO’s logic.
A/2 “Abortion is NOT murder”
RECALL CON’s 2 points under “A/2 OPENING”.
RECALL CON’s R1 ARGUMENT: “Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.”
Chicken Eggs?
Although CON is admittedly surprised that PRO has turned to chickens as subject matter,
2 responses:
PRO continues to cite the 40% miscarriage stat, when Harvard counters that miscarriages only happen at “15% to 20%” rate.
Regardless, contrary to PRO’s argument, many families choose to have funerals for their miscarried children.
The main reasons why many don’t vary. Funerals are costly and the majority of miscarriages happen near the first few Trimesters, so many families simply mourn and then move on.
A/2 “#1: Abortion lowered crime”
PRO admits that other factors are powerful enough to raise the homicide rate, essentially conceding CON’s R1 point that abortion is a negligible effect on crime when other factors are accounted for.
PRO claims that since CON’s graph focused on homicide the argument is void. CON counters that homicide rates are a good measure of how safe a city is, since petty marijuana possession and the like can inflate the crime rates of otherwise relatively safe cities.
CON has two replies:
1. This is an abusive and undue BoP. As instigator, PRO actually carries BoP to prove their position.
“When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”CON has presented evidence to the contrary of PRO’s unsubstantiated argument in R1, so the voter may conclude that PRO has not fulfilled their BoP that life does not begin at conception.
2. PRO ignores the fact they have openly endorsed abortion for all stages of pregnancy.
RECALL CON’s summary in R1: “Life begins at conception, DNA proves it. Even if it didn’t, it would begin at some point along the journey to birth.”
“the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later... many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place.”
Again, the most logical and scientifically supported marker for the beginning of life is conception.
RECALL CON’s 2 points under “A/2 OPENING”.
RECALL CON’s R1 ARGUMENT: “Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.”
Chicken Eggs?
2 responses:
- Chicken eggs are normally unfertilized when eaten.
- If it is a fertilized and developing egg, it is not equivalent to abortion because it is not human on human violence. Instead, it is simply a human eating a chicken fetus because it is tasty.
- We do not eat baby chickens because they are tiny and do not give much meat, not because they are “only just now alive” or something.
Regardless, contrary to PRO’s argument, many families choose to have funerals for their miscarried children.
The main reasons why many don’t vary. Funerals are costly and the majority of miscarriages happen near the first few Trimesters, so many families simply mourn and then move on.
A/2 “#1: Abortion lowered crime”
PRO admits that other factors are powerful enough to raise the homicide rate, essentially conceding CON’s R1 point that abortion is a negligible effect on crime when other factors are accounted for.
PRO claims that since CON’s graph focused on homicide the argument is void. CON counters that homicide rates are a good measure of how safe a city is, since petty marijuana possession and the like can inflate the crime rates of otherwise relatively safe cities.
“However, the source used is completely bogus and dedicated to ending christianity without regard to real facts.”
PRO’s criticism falls flat when CON’s citation is read under the "CRIME & CONDITIONS" subpoint of CON's R1.
As the voter can see, PRO’s criticism does not address the content of the original quote, but the organization that cited it. The argument stands unrefuted.
As the voter can see, PRO’s criticism does not address the content of the original quote, but the organization that cited it. The argument stands unrefuted.
“In fact, the source says “Stanford's John J. Donohue III” even though Donohue attended Yale and Harvard.”
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/john-j-donohue-iii/
A/2 #2 Women in the workplace
PRO says the only way to reliably increase women’s representation in the workplace is through abortion, and proceeds to cite statistics that argue that condoms and contraceptives are ineffective and that orphanages are backed up.
Unfortunately for PRO, they ignore CON’s previous argument for abstinence (i.e. the ultimate birth control) and they also cherry-picks their stats to misrepresent the truth.
The study they cited took polls of those who had abortions and asked them if they were using condoms or contraceptives at the time of pregnancy, and they asked them if they were using these consistently.
While 42% of the condom-users reported failure, inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms as well. Once you consider that only 1/250 condoms breaks (0.4%), the study simply shows that inconsistent use was a bigger contributor to unwanted pregnancy than breaks.
The results are similar with contraceptives, which are 91%+ effective, as 3/4ths of those taking them reported inconsistent use.
Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. And even then, orphanages and abstinence are still options.
A/2 #3 Economy
PRO states that India is proof population does not help the economy.
CON counters that India is the fastest growing economy in the world because of their population. Economists agree:
“Jorgenson credited the relative youth of the Indian population for recent gains. “India’s more favorable demography pushes up the hours worked and productivity components,” he said. “Those factors have led to India overtaking China” in the race to the world’s fastest growing economy.”
PRO states that the world has too many people and not enough jobs.
Is overpopulation possible? Yes. Are we near the global threshold? Not even close. According to Forbes,
“demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”
So the truth is, in the long run we could use more people, not less.
A/2 #2 Women in the workplace
PRO says the only way to reliably increase women’s representation in the workplace is through abortion, and proceeds to cite statistics that argue that condoms and contraceptives are ineffective and that orphanages are backed up.
Unfortunately for PRO, they ignore CON’s previous argument for abstinence (i.e. the ultimate birth control) and they also cherry-picks their stats to misrepresent the truth.
The study they cited took polls of those who had abortions and asked them if they were using condoms or contraceptives at the time of pregnancy, and they asked them if they were using these consistently.
While 42% of the condom-users reported failure, inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms as well. Once you consider that only 1/250 condoms breaks (0.4%), the study simply shows that inconsistent use was a bigger contributor to unwanted pregnancy than breaks.
The results are similar with contraceptives, which are 91%+ effective, as 3/4ths of those taking them reported inconsistent use.
Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. And even then, orphanages and abstinence are still options.
A/2 #3 Economy
PRO states that India is proof population does not help the economy.
CON counters that India is the fastest growing economy in the world because of their population. Economists agree:
“Jorgenson credited the relative youth of the Indian population for recent gains. “India’s more favorable demography pushes up the hours worked and productivity components,” he said. “Those factors have led to India overtaking China” in the race to the world’s fastest growing economy.”
PRO states that the world has too many people and not enough jobs.
“demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”
So the truth is, in the long run we could use more people, not less.
“To sacrifice all of this simply for moral reasons?”
Yes, absolutely. Even if PRO were right and banning abortion would hurt the economy, the economy is not worth 42 million people a year.
A/2 “Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions”
A/2 “Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions”
“The source presented by CON is applying for only the US”
This is a quote from the disputed source:
Sounds like it is not exclusively the US.
“In fact, if you look at stats from worldwide, 45% of worldwide abortions are done unsafely due to being illegal in third-world countries”
This stat simply refers to the number of illegal abortions done. As the above stat proves, this does not necessarily prove that these illegal abortions are “unsafe.”
Even if they were, RECALL CON’s R1 argument:
“CON argues that this objection does not resolve any moral objections to abortion. In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide at a toll of 42.3 million. Legalizing it for all would raise the death toll further. Compared to that of abortion subjects, there is no comparison.”
A/2 “UN Report”
PRO ignores CON’s response from R1 and pretends their argument is unrefuted:
“all PRO’s 1st world vs. 3rd world comparisons show is the degree of liberalism present in each country. Liberal countries tend to value freedom, and although they make exceptions for national safety/morality cases (as they should), they tend to let the people influence policy through democracy. This has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong morally.”
Even if they were, RECALL CON’s R1 argument:
“CON argues that this objection does not resolve any moral objections to abortion. In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide at a toll of 42.3 million. Legalizing it for all would raise the death toll further. Compared to that of abortion subjects, there is no comparison.”
A/2 “UN Report”
PRO ignores CON’s response from R1 and pretends their argument is unrefuted:
“all PRO’s 1st world vs. 3rd world comparisons show is the degree of liberalism present in each country. Liberal countries tend to value freedom, and although they make exceptions for national safety/morality cases (as they should), they tend to let the people influence policy through democracy. This has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong morally.”
“CON even agrees;
CON never agreed to such a thing.
“abortions conducted past 14 weeks are almost all due to fetal issues/maternal life….... In these cases, which count for 7% of abortions in America
PRO’s source does not contain evidence that abortions past 14 weeks are “almost all” due to fetal issues/maternal life. They also misquote their own source, as it specifically states that fetal issues and maternal life are only 1% and 0.27% of all cases respectively.
It is safe to conclude that PRO is wrong that “almost all” or even a good portion of post 14-week abortions are due to either fetal issues or maternal life.
CONCLUSION:
PRO has not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life does not begin at conception. Regardless, PRO still neglects to respond to the simple objection that it would begin at some point along the journey to birth.
To quote last round’s conclusion:
“PRO openly advocates for aborting all fetuses regardless of development, and has thus openly endorsed the killing of millions of people for the sake of a few questionable benefits. Vote CON.”
It is safe to conclude that PRO is wrong that “almost all” or even a good portion of post 14-week abortions are due to either fetal issues or maternal life.
CONCLUSION:
PRO has not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life does not begin at conception. Regardless, PRO still neglects to respond to the simple objection that it would begin at some point along the journey to birth.
To quote last round’s conclusion:
“PRO openly advocates for aborting all fetuses regardless of development, and has thus openly endorsed the killing of millions of people for the sake of a few questionable benefits. Vote CON.”
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Before rendering a decision, I must note for the record that both participants, arguing whether or not life begins at conception or at birth, neither participant bothered to render a definition of life in order to bolster either's argument. I see this as a major oversight when the definition, alone, would settle many of the argumentation points for both sides. I am extremely disappointed. I happen to know the answer, and have the evidence of proof, but will remain mum to maintain a balanced vote. That said,
Argument: Pro argued in first words: "Abortions do not kill." However, the argument quickly migrated to "murder" instead of "kill," and Pro maintained that abortion is not murder since life does not begin before birth. And yet, Pro then offered, "...scientists do not know when life begins and cannot prove it, and to say otherwise is completely false in the scientific community. Their only argument is based on opinion, while mine is based on facts." But "facts" sourced by Pro did not acknowledge the "completely false" claim. and even Pro's argument that "Scientists do not know" argues against the latter claim of "completely false." Further, in r2, Pro argues the definition of murder as, “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another,” and yet immediately argues why we don't call eating a chicken egg murder, and obvious reference to Con's argument that killing a human fetus is murder. Pro just defined murder as the taking of a human life. So, the chicken argument is a non sequitur. On balance, Pro lost the argument by not maintaining consistency of terms. Con's rebuttals against the various linkages pro made to the effects of abortion on crime, female employment, taxpayer costs, et al, are linkages which, by Pro's own source, John Donohue from Yale and Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago published a paper on “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime”, does not have scientific data to back up the claim [the sources reference [2]. Points to Con
Sources: Pro's sources of the effects of abortion on the issues such as noted in Argument were effectively countered by Con's, such as the exchange referenced in Argument re: Gonohue/Levitt, neither of whom are scientists [Law professor, and economist, respectively] Con's sources were far more accurate, by professionals in the fields of which they spoke, such as: "As Princeton cites:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... " This was actually the closest Con came to a correct understanding of life, somewhat absolving my preliminary comment. "Life is continuous" is the logical construct, as Cn argues, because the human gametes, male and female [sperm and ovum] are living cells, conceiving a living organism; the which DNA, as Con argues, is human ad only human; not a chicken, or any other animal. Con wins source points.
S&G: tie
Conduct: tie
Thank you for the analysis! Learned a lot from it
Thanks for the detailed analysis. It is very helpful and appreciated
Good debate!
I think I already mentioned the key weakness of being absolutely all or absolutely nothing. Con without a doubt did a much better job of leveraging that (pro should have used more focus on how rare late term abortions are, and the reason for full term if they ever occur definitely should have been in there); I did not notice nearly emphasis from pro on logical exceptions (I wish it did not play in, but rape for starters, threat to the mothers life; I think I've gotten a pro-lifer to oppose cancer treatments before due to the tumor being somewhat comparable to a fetus).
I did not realize this was only a 2-round debate until midway through con's R2. I do generally suggest more rounds with less characters, which mitigates the contender advantage as voters get a better sense for how the debate is going as the arguments get more flushed out.
I already swore off voting, but were I to vote, it would be arguments to con, and all other points tied.
R2-con:
A/2 OPENING:
Well played, particularly the BoP reminder talk of doubt. As a data scientist, even with a low confidence remaining, the number leaves a heavy impact.
A/2 “1. Life Starts at Birth”
Well played. I find the reference to pro being ok with killing people in their sleep a comedic stretch, but that is about the only weakness I see here. Which is so much of why I personally focus on the people angle, giving no importance to the fact of human cells. I would like to think what you've done here is how I would argue your side of this debate.
A/2 “Abortion is NOT murder”
Had to look back, because I missed the chicken egg argument above. I think I already gave some commentary on this seperately. Anyway, good defenses on why we're ok with eating chickens at any level of development. ... This does remind me of the meat is murder claims and why they're invalid, however that is not directly connected to this debate, and I truly do understand the utility of the appeal.
A/2 “#1: Abortion lowered crime”
Skimming a bit... Good defense of the previous source, as the information was not challenged, merely the speaker.
A/2 #2 Women in the workplace
Nice bit with the inconsistent use. You can pretty much insert my usual stuff against abstinence only education here.
A/2 #3 Economy
Very nice defense of India, and overpopulation not being a true problem for the world yet. ... neatly I think my slavery argument started related to insisted need for population growth, some politician was insisting it was peoples duty to have kids to bolster the economy, which goes directly against Kantian ethics I was studying around then, that people should not be treated as a means by as an end onto themselves.
A/2 “Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions”
A fine defense. Not the best source, but I'm not even sure what source it is challenging so, *shrug*.
A/2 “UN Report”
Very good challenger to what was represented as being inside the source!
CONCLUSION:
I do really like seeing when these hold true between rounds.
R2-pro:
I do like the opening syllogism. Even while it intuitively highlights the problem of this debate excluding the middle ground forcing each side to be all or nothing. As con previously said "By conception, it is already debatably murder, but by the 9th month, it is definitely so."
Decent job with life begins at birth, but I'm gain reminded of the above quote (and I say this as someone who trusts late-term abortions are going to be for strong reasons, not merely 'nah, changed my mind').
The murder point was handled well. I suggest in future moving away from the not human focus, to the not a person focus. Intellectually, a cat is closer to a person than a fetus at any point in development; while we should embrace animal cruelty laws, we don't give people the electric chair for first degree murder of a cat (they probably deserve the electric chair, but the crime would be a different one).
"#1: Abortion lowered crime"
"The study conducted by Donohue-Levitt isolated variables to determine drop for what happened in 1992, which was different than today."
Sadly, most people are not going to understand fancy words like "variables." Still to me it's a good defense of the study. As for the counter study, a short quote from it would greatly improve the description of why it's wrong. Plus I think you may have been mistyped, looking back I think it was a Christian fundamentalist source, insisting on religious law; as opposed to an anti-Christian source.
"#2 Women in the workplace"
Very well done defense against using adoption as birth control.
I will note on sourcing, that even with that link pointing to specific lines of text, it still could have been displayed with minimal character usage.
A displayed "http://www.adopt.org/faqs" taking just the character count from that, could still point to: http://www.adopt.org/faqs#:~:text=The%20wait%20is%20typically%20between,from%20the%20time%20of%20placement.
"#3 Economy"
Good comparison to India.
Weirdly I've seen this type of thing either spiral into you being called a racist for saying India is not the ideal we should aspire up to, or the person claiming race plays a role in the bad result. Neither of which I expect from con on this one.
"#4 Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions"
A strong defense, which would have benefited from better sourcing (even just pointing to a specific part of that page). Granted, I tend to point people to lengthy PDF's from the UN and WHO, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.
A key thing I will say, is that con by bringing in the millions of annual murders, is pretty much offering an excuse for anyone already biased to vote their bias instead of the debate as it played out (not pointing any fingers, I've just been on these sites too long that I've seen it... Heck my fetus as money debate, at certain times would have garnered several votes against me for opposing the pro-life side on that).
"#5 UN Report"
I looked back, and had difficulty differentiating which link was the report as opposed to pictures from the report (which is cool to see, but maybe label the links as that instead of just as whatever URL shortener?). Which is funny, since I suspect I've been using the report in question for a few debates now.
"CON proposes a complete ban without exceptions" is something to focus on more. I feel con has been doing a really good job of highlighting that your side is allowing them without cause even at 9 months, and you've kinda been just taking it... Ah the source you use here, a quote from it would make it pop (and allow people like me to quickly find the relevant section within it; searching for "14" I could not find the explanation of why those were occurring to verify it).
"Closing"
"As established, abortion is impossible to argue as murder" this isn't really true, as con has been arguing just that (successful or not, it risks harming your case's credibility to deny what people have clearly seen). This is a little worse given that con has put some focus on fully viable ones being on the chopping block (even if that does not actually happen, it's still an effective emotional tug on the heartstrings). The "illegal abortions would still be rampant" is of course a great point, but it feels a bit buried (pretty sure it came up earlier, but it is not standing out).
Ah yes, I see the issue. Thanks
It is both, actually. He means to argue we do not consider it "murder" when the chicken fetus is in the egg, but we do consider it "murder" when it is finally hatched. It's not the greatest analogy but it works
Quote from your r2: "It is not considered 'murdering a chicken' if one eats the egg." What "birth vs pre-birth?"
Ok, I had to look up the chicken part. I'm coincidentally using a different chicken analogy in my own abortion debate right now.
Regarding yours, I would say the weakness is that it only works if someone has not made the human cell clusters are human life argument (which these days is almost assured). If they've made that, it leaves the thing in a grey area, still susceptible to pull from the potential millions of deaths abortion might represent.
At the risk of preaching, I hold to the belief that human beings are unique for our minds. From this perspective, the mere fact of measurable human cells does not matter so much unless it's a person. A fire in a fertility clinic with a daycare, save the children, not the millions of frozen embryos (saving the office cat over the embryos, would be debatable). Heck, if we find a way to transfer minds from dying humans into non-human bodies, I would view the intentional destruction of such as murder, in a way that most pro-life arguments would not.
I see a lot of people attacking the chicken example I made -> It was used rather as an analogy of birth vs pre-birth rather than human and murder. It seems there was some confusion about this.
Thank you for taking the time to vote
Thanks for the feedback, as vector said. Regarding the quote: “PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
It should actually be:
“CON counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
I mixed up PRO and CON under that point :)
Thanks for the feedback for round 1! Definitely agree with a lot of what you said. I'll be making changes to my instigator argument for future use.
R1-pro:
Strong opening statement from pro. I will say that it would not hold up as well for late-term abortions, but that is such a small percentage that it's not a major problem.
Stating the only thing against abortion "Some people are offended by it" is bound to be problematic, it kind of invites con to mention the Poisoning The Well fallacy, so long as he can name any reason other than being offended (I've seen plenty who do not raise it beyond that, so I do understand the statement).
"The Effect of Abortion on Crime"
Really good data here.
"Women in the workforce"
A good start, but it feels like it's leading into something that does not deliver. It kinda belongs as a subheading to the next point.
"Abortion’s effect on the Economy and Lower Class"
Ties nicely into explaining the crime rate data.
"Effects of a ban on abortion"
This should have been point one (after your introduction). Putting it late into the round, is burying the lead; worse, it risks people skimming past it.
"Closing Remarks"
It right away cites a disproven reason for abortion bans. That kind of thing could have been its own contention, with a list of them, and the refusal of pro-life states to change in spite of being proven wrong in their excuses (general pro-life states avoids risk of targeting your opponent directly, even while implicitly attacking their position).
Conduct: Not nearly enough to be penalized, but it's usually best to in R1 as the instigator to not overly frame someone else's case. Even while I advise how to use guilt by association, such should be done carefully to not border on Ad Hominems. Your R1 as instigator should primarily be why you're right, less so why the other person is wrong.
---
R1-con:
“THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION”
The walk through the stages of pregnancy, is something I think it missing on most of these debates. I nearly did it on my current debate (before seeing it here), but the character limit was getting tight already. I will outright suggest this (well maybe a less one sided one) as something in the description on these.
Also the framing of pro’s case for late term abortions, was smart (gets less flack from me as this is in response). It does highlight one problem on this debate, in that these debates should generally be over when the cutoff occurs, as opposed to all or nothing.
“ABORTIONS DO NOT KILL”
I always dislike graphic descriptions, but I do understand it as a tactic.
“LIFE AT CONCEPTION”
I admit I did not understand the phrasing: “PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
“CRIME & CONDITIONS”
Con does a very good reframing (sorry that I keep using that term) of this contention, pointing blame at bad parents (who pro argues should thus not be forced to become parents). He has a counter proposal, which is a little besides the point about these debates, but well played. The problem with this type of counter proposal, is it is not guaranteed to happen either way. I admit I actually make about the same one regardless of if abortion should be legal or not… Effectively, I argue that if abortion is to be illegal, first there should be full support in place provided by the government for expectant mothers and their future children, to take away much of the current need for abortion.
“ECONOMIC BENEFIT”
Well played counter that those children would be consumers. It is an argument that usually stands on thin ice, yet one that is usually unopposed for some reason.
“ABORTIONS ARE SAFE (UNLESS DONE ILLEGALLY):”
“Advertising the ability to efficiently kill children may not be the best way to advocate for abortion in terms of ethics.” Very well said. The safety is better as a defense point when deluded people start citing long disproven things, but standing on its own without being a response to that, it’s very vulnerable to this type of counter.
The rest of his counter was less good, I even glanced into one of the sources… Curious if pro will catch the faults or not. If not, them standing uncontested would greatly hurt the affirmative case.
“NICARAGUA AND THE UN REPORT”
A bit of a deflection, but a wise one. Again, pointing back to the pro case being the opposite of this messed up place, which also gets into an ugly area.
Sources: Skimming over the sources, they tended to be openly agenda driven ones. Within such sources, they often call to better sources, which are needless to say, better to use. I don't know yet if pro weaponizes them properly, but these sources would be easy to flip to bolster his claims about the pro-life stance is based on "-Some people are offended by it (for moral/religious reasons pertaining to their feelings)"
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
18 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
pro's case is too difficult; it's too hard to argue that during all of pregnancy that the baby is not alive. If pro could even provide the shred of doubt before 9 weeks (and thus hard to provide any responses from the fetus), then he could make a break through in con's case. Alas, he could not.
Thanks for voting on our debate! However, it will be removed until you add some more detail to it. We do this to ensure that voting remains high quality and fair.
Here is a quick guide for voting:
"To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision."
Just don't go the direction of Gish Galloping.
Also you should know that numbered links [1, 2, etc], take even less of the character limit than URL shorteners. Plus just by hovering the mouse, someone can see what it is pointing to. ... I still generally suggest a list at the end, but I'd be lying if I said I never condensed something down in there.
Also, I think if I ever have a second debate it could be even stronger now that my argument has been through some battles. Once I condense my writing down, I can fit more points too.
Thank you Ragnar! Yes, changing it to rated would be nice.
Thanks for the kind words and for looking over it for us. I'm alright with the debate being changed to rated. What about you vector?
This is the greatest use of the comment section I can remember.
It's so nice to see the debaters having a genuine discussion with each other.
Oh and FYI, if you both want the debate may be changed to rated.
...
Regarding voting: You can expect me to read this debate. However, I will probably not be moved out of the tied range, given that it looks like a great job from both combined with my own bias which extends the tied range.
I've long considered one of my debates to be the best abortion debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024/should-abortion-be-made-illegal), but this one might unseat it.
It could have strengthened that point substantially. Although I could've simply countered that 42.3 million abortions per year outweighs the "Unsafe Abortions" point entirely, the stat could have earned you a victory over my point about women being deterred from abortion by the law. Although I think using those stats to argue that women have the same amount of abortions either way ignores major cultural factors. Typically the countries that have more restrictions are poorer and more religious, and society looks down upon women who have sex outside of marriage FAR more. The result is that women who have had sex outside of wedlock are far more compelled to have an abortion, which overrides the negating effect of the law. So while it is true that it makes up the difference for 2nd or 3rd world countries, if we made abortion illegal in the US, for example, I doubt women would have abortions at the same rate as they do now. Overall there's some very interesting implications from that stat
Could I get your thoughts on this stat?
https://givingcompass.org/article/the-demographic-breakdown-of-women-who-are-getting-abortions/
Scroll down to "Abortion Restrictions". In countries where there are bans, the number of abortions per 1000 women is no less than in countries without restrictions. I think that including this stat would have definitely strengthened my case a lot more.
Thoughts?
"In order to show that abortion is murder, CON must show undoubtedly that life begins before birth. If you have one shred of doubt, CON’s entire case falls apart. "
That's beyond all possible doubt, not reasonable doubt
I agree. Though I disagree with your interpretation, we can leave it off as there is no round 3. Just need to wait for the votes. Glad I could challenge myself with this debate!
Anyway, just my take. Let's leave the debate as-is and let the judges decide
I think that bringing up women's rights might've helped depending on the judge. A constitutional battle can be a good way to win some libertarians over. You can say "you may not agree with it, but it is their constitutional freedom" and that could potentially be convincing. For people like me, the best angle is to give me some really solid scientific facts that negate life beginning at conception.
As for the 90% stat, my interpretation is that it was global. They wouldn't have worded it like they did otherwise, in my opinion. I could be wrong. Either way, I think the key word here is "estimated." It's not exact and it's not meant to be. You say there was no way to attain data from other countries, yet you also cited that 45% stat... So if that is the case I suppose we are both guilty.
As for the 75% saying "no reason," I don't think it is common practice to remove that number and then inflate the percentages like that. I might be wrong, but I think there are genuinely a lot of women who get an abortion for none of the reasons that they listed. Simply: they did not want a child. It's not like that was the only poll there either, it just happened to be the one I cited. Regardless, 7%... 1.27%... both small numbers with very little true difference in terms of the debate.
Yeah I didn't know what to do as it was my first debate. Do you think my case would have been stronger if I added things pertaining to women's rights? I think I could have improved my case if I added things with constitutional rights pertaining to the US constitution, etc.
Also, some further notes regarding to the source on how 90% of abortions are done by licensed physicians (this does not pertain to the main debate as there is no R3 and thus this is simply post-debate discussion):
Your source: https://abort73.com/end_abortion/what_about_illegal_abortions/
It stated:"...article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing"
Given that the excerpt provided only cited New York as its research example and that data from other countries were unattainable, it is safe to conclude that it only meant America, not the globe. There was no mention of worldwide and only mentions of America.
For https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Where you said that fetal/maternal life issues accounted for 1.27% of abortions rather than 7%, the chart that was used for your had 75% of participants not fill it out at all. Thus, adjust the data points removing the 75% who didn't participate produces (and this data is for Florida only): 4% from fetal defects, 13.6% for maternal health, and remaining 80% as economic reasons (incest+rape as 1%).
This is just for verification of data only, and does not pertain to the debate at all. Could you please go through and verify it too, the numbers/evidence only? Thanks.
Yes, I agree. Overall this one of the stronger debates on the site. Too bad we didn't make it rated!
Glad how this debate turned out! Very strong finish
I think the debate could have used a 3rd round, just for future reference. It feels a bit unfinished, like we didn't have enough clash or something
I wouldn't punish the women. I'd abolish it and leave it at that. Similar to how we did not punish every Confederate soldier after the end of the Civil War. History looks back at them in disgust, and that is enough for me.
Well, in the case that Pro-Life does institute some sort of restriction on abortion, I definitely would be in support of compromising with the said method of forced blood donations (with exceptions, of course). However, in the case in which abortion is kept legal, I would not support any form of punishment for abortions and will support government funding to increase access to planned parenthood.
The punishment doesn't have to be effective; it just as to be proportional. 80% of pro lifers are pro contraception legalization, so if your worried about losing contraception with an abortion ban, that just wouldn't happen anytime soon. I'm fine with contraception and education about the contraception methods. I'm also pro life though, and because of that, I think abortion should be punished in a proportional manner.
As I am pro-choice, I do not believe this punishment would be an effective deterrent. It seems to be more of a creative benefit from abortion. Personally, I would not punish abortion as I do not find it morally wrong nor pertaining to murder. In contrary, abortions would be more effective to be reduced through education, more birth control access, and other means to prevent pregnancies from taking place.
The blood would be taken in a safe way and while unusual, it wouldn't be too cruel. It has to be both in order for it to be against the constitution. If the woman can't give blood, her boyfriend would have to. If neither one of them can do it, they'll have to rely on one of their parents to get it done. The parents can make a deal with the kid to have the punishment carried out. Thoughts?
So how would you punish abortion? To me, since we can't jail women for life for having an abortion, it seems like a fair and proportional penalty.
Though this is quite a creative compromise, I would not think this as a practical endeavor. Donating blood is often associated with many health effects, many people are not qualified to donate blood, and constitutionally, this is categorized as a "cruel and unusual punishment" and since it cannot encompass all subjects, it is not a uniform punishment. To require all abortion patients to be subject to this law would definitely be cruel and unusual as not everyone has the ability to donate blood, and many conditions render the forced extracted blood to unusable.
I don't think human life is a zero sum game. The policy lessens the moral dent, but it does not wash their hands of the crime.
Now, if we HAVE to have abortion legal then the policy is better than nothing. Still, it is far from optimal
I would institute a light but proportional penalty for abortion; I'd make the woman or her boyfriend give enough blood to save someone else's life. I've tagged you both because there have been some pro lifers that I've met and some pro choicers that have both backed this punishment, and some that hav believed it to be too harsh or too lenient. Thoughts on it?
Yeah, I thought that it would be suitable for my first debate to be unrated.
Yeah no problem. It was fun, and since the debate is unrated it doesn't matter all that much regardless.
Thank you for this opportunity to debate you! Even if I do not win, I will have learned a lot to strengthen my side for future arguments. You have proven to be a very competent opponent as it took me a while to come up with a clever response.
ATTENTION VOTERS!!
I made a typo in my R1. I mixed up the "PRO" and "CON" label under the LIFE AT CONCEPTION point.
Here is what it SHOULD say:
"LIFE AT CONCEPTION
PRO argues that life beginning at birth is a moot point because it is subjective and fickle.
CON counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts."
Thank you!
I agree. You will do well here. Welcome to the site
"By the way, this is my first time doing this and debating, so my apologies if I am a complete noob."
Looks pretty good for an opening debate. You are not a noob.
Don't sweat it. You'll catch on quickly to the formal debate norms
Thank you! I am also looking forward to seeing your argument. By the way, this is my first time doing this and debating, so my apologies if I am a complete noob.