Framing
Framing was dropped, so Aff has a BoP to prove all abortions are immoral and should be illegal.
I did provide logic for why I think abortion is killing a living human child, and that logic was that life begins at conception. If life begins at conception, then all abortions would be considered murder.
What I said was that no evidence has been presented to show that life begins at conception. The problem is that Aff starts with: "that logic was life begins at conception," but as I point out Aff makes an assumption that a life starts out at conception with no evidence of this particular fact.
2. Life vs. Humanity
First Aff says that we can probably both agree that a fetus has more value than a tree or a fly, but this is an oversimplification. At 12 weeks, a fetus is an ontological human, but on the first day of pregnancy the fetus is far less complex than a human or even a fly for that matter.
My whole point here is that we do not need to ask when life begins, but rather we should ask when it should be valued as human life. Simply saying we should agree on this is in no way a response.
Next Aff gives a wild oversimplification of ontology, saying that it simply asks if something exists or does not exist. So an ontological human because it exists, but this is not what ontology is. "Ontology concerns claims about the nature of being and existence." [1] Ontology can ask if something exists as a human with value, or if it is different.
My Case
First Aff says that I am saying a fetus is a fish, but this is not what I am saying. I am saying before 8 weeks a fetus is no more complex than a fish, and has no more value than its physical state reflects. This is supported by science, and it is a well known fact that evolution mirrors development. A 5 week old fetus is no more developed than a fish.
The rest of the points have absolutely no relevance to my point that an early fetus is less developed than non-human species.
According to the American Pregnancy Association, most women find out they're pregnant during their
fourth to seventh week of pregnancy.
When women find out has nothing to do with if an abortion is moral at that stage, or with the complexity of a child.
By that time, the baby already has a heartbeat, it is ten THOUSAND times larger than the fertilized egg. The eyes, legs, and hands are formed. There are already brainwaves detectable, mouth and lips are present, and fingernails are forming. By week THREE the baby's backbone and spinal cord is forming, the nervous system is taking shape, the liver and kidneys and intestines are there, and by day 22, the child's heart is already beating with its own individual blood, not the mother's.
A fish has a heartbeat, all mammals become larger than a fertilized egg, and so on. Even if you wanted to pick anyone of these things as a standard for value they are all after day 0, so abortion should still be fine before this.
My standard of an ontological human is also better because it directly deals with the state of value that a fetus has at any given time, and is not completely arbitrary like choosing heart rate or a singular brainwave as the starting point of humanity.
Something useful for you:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each is supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
I do really advise keeping resolutions to single clauses, or even "assuming x, then y" statements.
One of my first debates was on if prison is more voluntary than not, and some nihilists complained that free will doesn't exist (which would be a fun debate in itself, but was not what I cared to discuss); so I added the clause 'assuming free will exists...' which reduced my opponents main argument down to a non-sequitur attempt to move the goalposts.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro gave good arguments against abortion based on the life of a child. Also pro forfeited twice.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments way to vague, wholly missing whatever that other side offered, and nothing touching on sources.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
Welcome to the site, and good luck on your future debates.
A stillbirth is the death of a baby at or after the 20th week of pregnancy. Roughly 2.6 million babies worldwide are stillborn each year.
Isn't God showing us that life does not begin until first breath?
good debates folks!
Sounds good!
i will vote on this