Legalized Abortion

Thanks, vector and welcome to the site!
OBSERVATIONS:

• 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. 
  

CONSTRUCTIVE:

1. THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION
   

CON argues that human life begins at conception and continues until death.
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.
  

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.... 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.”
  

Brian Clowes, PhD:

• “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.”
  

PRO is arguing that under all of these stages of pregnancy, abortion should be available. By conception, it is already debatably murder, but by the 9th month, it is definitely so. 
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. 

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. 

1. Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes, 2003. Page 83
   

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. 

“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.”
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:

1. Chicken eggs are normally unfertilized when eaten. 
   
2. 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. 
   
3. 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. 
   

MiscarriagesPRO 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. 
 

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. 
 

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. 

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”
 

“the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians”

Sounds like it is not exclusively the US. 

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.”
 

CON never agreed to such a thing.
 

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.”