Instigator / Pro
Points: 17

Should abortion be made illegal?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 25
Description
Please refrain from slandering your opponent in any way. Arguments such as "you hate women" are not valid. Please cite any facts or statistics used and retain good conduct during the debate.
I am against all forms of abortion (yes even in cases of rape and incest) except for if the mother will die as a result of the birth. Good luck to my opponent
Round 1
Published:
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, I would like to begin by laying the foundation for a civil discussion in which hopefully both sides will be able to see the validity of the other and come to an overall consensus on who better laid out their argument.  I will be taking the affirmative position and debating that the human embryo has value and deserves life.  I wish my opponent luck.

Point 1- The unborn child is very much alive and very much human
The argument that an embryo is not human holds no validity, during growth inside of his or her mother, the child does not change species.  This is illogical.  Google defines "life" the following; 

1. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

2. The existence of an individual human being or animal.

Both definitions apply to the human embryo as the child already has it's own (1).  The child is a distinct individual separate from its mother. Pre-mature babies can be born at as little as just 21 weeks and live, a long shot before the full term abortions many abortion rights activists now support (2), I would hope to at least find a middle ground here with my opponent. 
_________

Point 2- Abortion is murder
To set terms I would like to once again address the google dictionary in which murder is defined as:

1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion is clearly premeditated as it is required to enter an abortion clinic and have a doctor perform the surgery in order for the procedure to take place.  Kill is defined as:

1cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

and finally, death is defined as:

1. the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.

The child has its life forcefully taken from it because, as previously established, the embryo is alive.  
_________

Point 3- Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective

With the normalization of abortion, people have begun to devalue human life inside the womb.  With this logic, when someone commits suicide it should be a celebration as they received what they wanted and according to them, their life has no objective value.  This logic is clearly immoral and I would wish no one would think this way, as I don't believe anyone does.  I am not attacking pro-choice individuals, simply their logic and showing that, with minor tweaks, it can be made into utter, disreputable evil.  Human life has objective value and its value cannot and should not be altered by anyone's feelings of its subjectivity.
_________

I would now ask my opponent to take these points into consideration and respond to them with some of his own.  Thank you.
_________

Citations
Published:
As both debaters live in the United States of America, I shall assume this debate is about legalities within that country.

My main point will simply be against slavery. I will also very likely be borrowing heavily from a couple previous debates I’ve had on this topic [1,2]. But first, I shall reply to my opponent's claims...


I. “very much human”
I fail the see the significance of human cells, or even non-intelligent human life.
If we as a country prioritized even intelligent human life, it is unlikely we would be building a border wall, and we would proactively prevent school shootings even at the expense of emotional pain to certain adults.


II. “Abortion is murder”
This core piece of pro’s case is just a giant non-sequitur fallacy [3]. It has as much merit as someone saying “you hate women” rather than making a case. He argues that it’s already illegal because he defines it as murder (he specifically uses the legal definition), which would prevent it from then being made illegal.


III. “value of life become subjective”
Value has always been a subjective term because different people want different things. As an example, one of us might pay $12 for a single beer while attending a concert or sports event, and the other might buy a six-pack of the same beer for only $10. Even the most basic code of ethics, Utilitarianism [4], supports our right to do this. Of course pro might call one or both of us immoral for engaging in the Pursuit of Happiness in such a way that makes beer have merely subjective value.

According to one subject matter expert, in 2013 the estimated price for giving birth was $12,638.31 [5]. While there are ways to get this lowered, it is already excluding lost income from not working, and compounded by missing out on promotions. Some women value a stranger more than $12K (to be charitable I’m rounding down), others do not.


IV. Health
The health of a woman suffers greatly from pregnancy, with long term lasting effects. Some of the common ones during pregnancy: Anemia, Depression, Ectopic pregnancy, Gestational diabetes, High blood pressure, Hyperemesis gravidarum, Placenta previa, Placental abruption, Toxemia [6].

Pro believes exclusively in an exception for if “mother will die as a result of the birth,” yet as with the case of Ectopic Pregnancy [7], a birth will almost never occur, “the unborn child [whom] is very much alive and very much human” will simply kill the mother and itself unless aborted first.


V. Slavery
Slavery is outlawed in the USA, because it is universally horrible [8]. Forcing unwilling women into servitude as chattel for another, is by definition making her a slave [9].


Sources:
First to address pro’s sources.
  1. I do not challenge this point of basic genetics.
  2. I fail to see any significance to undesired pregnancies, that a desired one resulted in a surviving premature birth.
  3. Source spamming an hour long advertisement for Black Rifle Coffee…

As for my sources, they are below with descriptions when not self explanatory.
  1. https://www.debate.org/debates/should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/
    A comedic debate on a “rap” exception (rap, not rape).
  2. https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion-as-birth-control-should-be-illegal./1/
    A serious schooling on the topic.
  3. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
  4. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
  5. http://www.babybankruptcy.com/2013/04/how-much-does-cost-birth-without-insurance/
  6. https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications#b
  7. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0215/p1080.html
    Information on Ectopic Pregnancy.
  8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/intro_1.shtml
  9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave
Round 2
Published:
I will now begin the rebuttals on my opponent's statements. 
_________

Point 1- Very much human
In this case, my opponent stated that he sees no significance in whether or not the child inside of the mother is human.  He stated that because we as a society don't attempt to regulate school shootings and because we attempt to keep strong borders, that means we don't care about human life and henceforth it does not matter if abortion is the killing of human life.  Simply put, these facts, while wrong, are irrelevant.  Besides the fact that we take massive strides to prevent school shootings., the case for abortion isn't that we need to give the child the best life, it's that we think the child has the right to live.  My opponent's case here is irrelevant and does not contrast my original argument that the human embryo is human life and deserves a chance outside the womb alive.
_________

Point 2- Abortion is Murder
My opponent completely discredited my statements from round one in this case.  He claimed that by my pointing out the abortion, by definition is the equivalent of murder, it is a non-sequitur fallacy and so the point can be disregarded.  The following is a quote from my opponent "He argues that it’s already illegal because he defines it as murder (he specifically uses the legal definition), which would prevent it from then being made illegal."  A non-sequitur is defined as "when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion." (1) This is not a case of a non-sequitur fallacy.  If abortion was the legal equivalent of murder, it would entirely have to do with an argument on whether or not abortion should be legal.
_________

Point 3- Value of Life Becomes Subjective
My opponent's first argument in this case is being that value is a subjective term.  He stated that the value of beer is subjective based on customers and location and I would completely agree with him in that statement.  I would never, as my opponent states it, "call one or both of us immoral for engaging in the Pursuit of Happiness in such a way that makes beer have merely subjective value".  However, this point does not translate to my opponent's next statement.  While the value of a can of beer is certainly subjective, the value of a human life is in no way relatable.

My opponent's second point in this case states that giving birth is expensive, and many women value 12k over a stranger.  My opponent did not leave a link to the study that found the claim in which women value money over strangers, however.  I am not certain whether he believes they value money overseeing a stranger, or whether they would accept 12k to become an assassin.  If the statement means women would rather have 12k then see a stranger, I agree I would as well.  However, if my opponent is stating that there are women who would kill a stranger for 12k, then it already proves my point that human life is becoming less and less valuable.
_________

Point 4- Health
No one is denying that pregnancies do usually come with certain health risks.  However, as I already stated, in cases such as Ectopic Pregnancies, if the mother is at risk of death, I would be in favor of the abortion and it should be legal.  Pregnancies also can come with certain health risks, but, the mother should be aware of these before becoming pregnant.  The statement "Hard cases make bad law" could be applied here (2).  You cannot make the decisions for the majority based on the exceptions of the minority.

This is also not a good argument as abortions also carry risks, such as damage to the uterus or other organs, blood clots, excessive bleeding, damage to the womb, and more (3) (4).  Also, abortions are always, unless they are unsuccessful, a fatal procedure.  The end goal in an abortion is the death of an infant, the end goal in pregnancy is the new creation of life.
_________

Point 5- Slavery
Firstly, I'm not sure how my opponent can make this case as he is using the same logic in which I showed abortion was murder, yet he claimed that was a logical fallacy.  However, as I stated it was still relevant I will also debunk this theory.  My opponent is stating the woman is forced into slavery by her child.  He is stating that because the Merriam Webster definition of slavery is:

1. a person held in servitude as the chattel of another (5)

This means that the woman is forced to be chattel to her child.  This is clearly incorrect for many reasons.  Firstly a chattel is defined as:

1. an item of property other than real estate. (6)

It is specified in the definition that slavery cannot be defined as real estate.  In this instance, the woman is, in a way, acting as real estate to her child.  The womb is the child's home for the nine months of pregnancy and legally cannot be defined as a slave master.  Also, only 1.5% of abortions are due to rape and incest (7).  This means that for over 98% of abortions, the women knew what they were getting themselves into.  They chose to act in a way which would lead to them becoming pregnant so they were not forced into servitude.
_________

Point 6- The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution clearly outlines that all people have a right to life.  The fourteenth amendment clearly states

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." (8)

Should a consensus be reached that a child in the womb is a human, then it is clear they would be awarded this right and abortion could not be permitted.  My opponent, however, disregarded this and said: "I fail the see the significance of human cells, or even non-intelligent human life."

Citations:
Published:
I. “very much human”
If my tactic here is unclear, it is quite simply to dismiss the importance of non-intelligent human cell clusters within the US, via showing that we have not first given importance to fully sentient human beings.

Immigrants (continued)
People who die trying to cross the border [1] could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens. This is not done.

This also ties into contention III., affirming that the value of human life is subjective.

School Shootings (continued)
The emotional well being of adults wishing to have easy access to firearms, is considered more important than the lives of school children [2]. Heck it’s considered more important than the lives of adult citizens, when even a simple measure like universal background checks “could prevent 1,100 homicides per year” [3].


II. “Abortion is murder”
“My opponent completely discredited my statements from round one in this case.”
Correct. It is very discredited.

Even with my opponent trying to cherry-pick [4] a different definition for non-sequitur, his argument still fails to support his conclusion. He specifically insists it is already illegal, which would prevent it from then being changed to be illegal as he requests.


III. “value of life become subjective”
Extend. My opponent's Straw Person [5] attack on my case, did not actually challenge the massive price ($12K) a woman must pay if giving birth. This further proves that life is of subjective value given different income brackets (some women can afford that, others cannot).


IV. Health
Ectopic Pregnancies
As already shown, the exception he proposed was for if the birth would kill them, not if the pregnancy would kill them prior to the birth.

“should be aware”
The vast majority of abortions are for unplanned pregnancies [6], thus future knowledge is not a a point of significance. Plus it completely flips pro’s own words, given that he is trying to make an argument about a minority of cases where the pregnancy is planned: “You cannot make the decisions for the majority based on the exceptions of the minority.”

“abortions also carry risks”
First, those are all known when someone opts for the procedure.
Second, as my opponent's own source states: “These problems are really rare, and they’re usually easy to treat” and “Abortions are generally very safe and most women won't experience any problems” [7,8].

Stillbirth
My opponent insists that “abortions are always ... a fatal procedure.” Yet even by his standard that is not true, as there are many fetuses that die naturally in the womb [9]. The solution to these when detected is of course aborting the pregnancy [10], but my opponent’s case insists the mother must carry them to term.


V. Slavery
My opponent has attempted to define women as a property type other than slaves via semantics, which even if it passed would not challenge all the problems of treating people like slaves. I shall however defend that forcing women into servitude is slavery...

Chattel
I hate to go down the rabbit hole, but pulling the US legal definition of chattel:
“Chattels are moveable items of property which are neither land nor permanently attached to land or a building, either directly or vicariously through attachment to real property. Therefore, growing corn is a chattel since it is not permanently attached to land. A sofa is chattel but a house, a tree or a concrete building foundation are not. The opposite of chattel is real property which includes lands or buildings. Chattel is personal property, which is distinguished from real property.” -USLegal.com [11]
Thus the women are not real estate as my opponent insists. Plus attempting to treat them as such (or even as chattel or any other type of property) is already directly counter to his own case that the value of human life is sacred and must not be treated as subjective (unless he’s defining women as not human).

Forced
It is forced if they are forced to continue it against their wishes. The circumstances leading to pregnancy have no bearing on a woman having a choice what to do with her body when she wishes; particularly if she is 18 or over.


VI. Constitution
The constitution explicitly protects a woman’s right to have an abortion, literally by the cited fourteenth amendment.” Were he to have read what he posted, he would have noted the word “state,” as in the government (specifically the local governments, but that’s drifting off topic). The government shall not force certain things upon anyone, but it does not mean free actors shall be denied their various rights.

From his own source: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” literally he excluded the Due Process clause from the same sentence he was quoting [12], when that very sentence is the reason Roe v. Wade [13] has repeatedly been upheld by the supreme court.

My opponent confuses that the government lacks the right to force people to partake in abortions (which it does under conservative politicians, but that’s another case), with women having a right to privacy in their health care decisions.


Sources:
First to address pro’s sources.
  1. Cherry picked alternative definition which failed to change anything.
  2. One I successfully flipped.
  3. One I successfully flipped.
  4. One I successfully flipped.
  5. A definition to which we both agree.
  6. A cherry-picked definition, which I have challenged with a definition of higher authority (mainly for clarity, rather than going through the sub definitions of each word).
  7. I have not challenged this, as I haven’t framed the debate in terms of a rape exception (specifically I don’t hate women, so I don't believe their rights get given to them only when something terrible happens).
  8. One I successfully flipped.

As for my sources (some of pro's are repeated due to needing to use them to show that they opposed his own argument).
  1. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/24-immigrants-have-died-ice-custody-during-trump-administration-n1015291
  2. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/10/18134232/gun-violence-schools-mass-shootings
  3. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-stop-gun-school-shooting-america-2018-11#assault-weapons-ban-1
  4. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
  5. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
  6. http://mcmch.org/resources/Brookings+Unintended+Pregnancy+Report.pdf
  7. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/how-safe-is-an-in-clinic-abortion
  8. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/risks/
  9. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/stillbirth/facts.html
  10. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/patients/patient-information-leaflets/pregnancy/pi-when-your-baby-dies-before-birth.pdf
  11. https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/chattels/
  12. https://constitutionus.com/
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Round 3
Published:
Before I begin my closing arguments, I would like to thank my opponent for keeping good conduct and offering logical arguments throughout the duration of the debate.  This has been a great first debate for me and it was an honor to have taken on Ragnar.
_________

Point 1- Very Much Human
My opponent here is utilizing a red herring fallacy (1) in attempting to divert from the fact that a child in the womb is human.  He is pointing to irrelevant facts such as the U.S. border policies and gun control, which detract from the debate.  From the wording he has given it seems as if he does agree that the child in the womb is human and should that be true, it would not matter whatever else is happening.  My opponent makes a particularly weak argument here as he is saying that because other crises exist, that means we don't have to do anything to end the killing of innocent children.  The following example may seem extreme, however, it applies.  Say we are in New York state and we discover that in California, a building recently collapsed with hundreds of people in it.  At the same time, however, someone in New York suffered a potentially fatal burn.  Does the New Yorkers life no longer matter simply because something tragic happened in another part of the country?  My opponent's argument that we can't help children who are dying every day because of abortions simply because other problems are happening, this logic does not follow.
_________

Point 2- Abortion is Murder
I still do not see how my argument should be discredited in this case.  The definition I used for non-sequitur is nearly identical to the one used by my opponent in round one so by saying it was "cherry picked" is simply false.  This is the definition of non-sequitur given by my opponent in round 1:

"It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s)" (2)

Here is the definition I gave in round 2:

"when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion." (3)

They mean essentially the same thing, however, I will follow the definition used by my opponent for this argument as apparently mine was not good enough.  The conclusion I am reaching by showing the obvious connection between abortion and murder clearly follows and adds to the premise.  I am not making an argument that abortion is already illegal because obviously, it's not.  I am stating, however, that because abortion can clearly be related to murder in a very simple way, it should be taken under consideration showing that they are very similar acts.
_________

Point 3- Value of Life Becomes Subjective
The reason I had to use a straw man argument in this case last round was because my opponent did not provide a link to the study he referred to, and still has not.  I have looked up the study he mentioned in which:

Some women value a stranger more than $12K (to be charitable I’m rounding down), others do not.
I looked into this claim and found no such study.  I am glad I did not as well because if there are women who would have a stranger killed to receive 12k, (and that is not a straw man because that's what is happening in the case of abortion) then I feel we can all agree those women have had a severe moral breakdown.  

Also, if the birth mother wants to give the baby up for adoption rather than have it aborted, the majority of the pregnancy costs will be handled by the adoptive parents.  In some cases, even costs such as living expenses and bills are covered in the months leading up to the pregnancy (4).
_________

Point 4- Health
Ectopic Pregnancies
On this topic, my opponent is claiming because I forgot about a minor detail when writing the debate description that my argument is invalid.  Of course, I would advocate for an abortion if the mother would die in any state of the pregnancy.

Should be aware
This is an especially weak argument from my opponent as no pregnancy is completely unexpected.  Everyone knows that is you participate in sexual activities it may end in pregnancy.  Should a mother be irresponsible and do such things then the baby never would have been created.  Of course, abstinence (5) is the best way to avoid pregnancy.  I would also be fully in favor of having the father cover 100% of the medical costs and lost money from maternity leave and more.  The father should not be left off the hook in this case.  

Abortions also carry risks
I could make the same argument here, the mother should know the risks before getting pregnant.  If the mother would die, as I already stated, then the abortion should take place, however, in any other case, it's not reasonable to end a life simply to prevent another from getting an infection.

Stillbirth
If a woman has a stillbirth and removes the dead child it is, by definition, not an abortion.  This is the medicinal definition of abortion:

Abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. (6)

Pregnant is defined as:

The state of carrying a developing embryo or fetus within the female body. (7)

If a stillbirth occurs, the embryo or fetus is no longer developing, meaning the woman is not pregnant making it impossible to have an abortion (8).  
_________

Point 5- Slavery
My earlier point regarding slavery did sound as if I was defining a woman as real estate, I only did so to follow the path my opponent is taking.  I will be taking a different method in an attempt to debunk this point than legal definitions this time.  Firstly, as already established in point 4, even unplanned pregnancies are begun with the mother's knowledge through the form of sexual activity.  It is very easy to stop these things from ever beginning by simply refraining from that activity.  Next, because the woman chose to create this life, she is now responsible for it.  She has caused this life to be made and cannot simply murder it because it is inconveniencing her.  Pregnancy has never been likened to slavery and it is horrible to do so.  The woman is not simply forced to go through pregnancy, she is cut off from the ability to kill a human.
_________

Point 6- Constitution
Roe v. Wade was decided based on the context of a woman's "right to privacy" as found in the constitution (9).  However, this right to privacy should never trump someone's right to life.  While I believe the constitution should always be followed, in the case of someone's life versus someone's right to privacy, life should win every single time.
_________

Again, I need to thank my opponent for this debate and I implore the judges to look at the arguments and decide honestly who has better presented their side.  Thank you.

Citations:
Published:
I. “very much human”
As should be clear from R1 forward, pro has established no value on the mere fact of cells or complex cell structures being human.

“red herring fallacy”
It would have been a Red Herring were I to have say spoken of the dairy industry. From pro’s own source “It's not a red herring if the point is actually crucial to the opponent's argument -- even if they don't realize it” [1]. What I have done is introduced comparative value on human lives, which has been the only attempt to introduce any type of value on human life. Without this element, pro’s whole case would be irrelevant.

Interestingly, pro claims that I have been “attempting to divert from the fact that a child in the womb is human,” when it is easily verified as false, given that I have repeatedly referred to them as “non-intelligent human” (life and cell clusters, but I am not going for some victory by technicality), note the word “human.”

Immigrants (continued)
That it would be wrong to prevent the death of sentient humans at the forced expense of others has been dropped. So extend.

School Shootings (continued)
Pro has completely dropped that our legal system recognizes the emotional well being of senior humans (even ones known to be a danger to others), outweighs the safety of junior humans. Worse this is talking about both classes of sentient human life, not even getting into the much lower value (if any) of non-sentient human life. So extend.


II. “Abortion is murder”
Pro has now conceded that abortion is not murder. He first insisted “abortion is murder” as one of his key points, then explained that for something to be murder it must be illegal, and now “I am not making an argument that abortion is already illegal because obviously, it's not.” Thus he agrees abortion is not murder.

I stand by the non-sequitur claim, as pro has not managed to even suggest that a legal action is secretly an illegal one, which would be required to prove this contention. Thus the conclusion in no way follows the evidence, AKA non-sequitur.

I do however drop the cherry-picking claim, as I now doubt that was not his intent.


III. “value of life become subjective”
Evidence
R1, S5 (first round, my fifth source). Not liking data, or being unable to understand it even when simplified down from $12,638.31, in no way excused his now repeated straw-person fallacies, and insults against women.

Pro has further failed to offer any reason why it would be in the best interest of anyone to take on a $12,638.31 debt for a stranger. While I insist they have the right to do that if they so choose, pro seems to believe it should be forced upon someone.

Adoption
First, having a sponsor family pay the direct hospital bills (which excludes additional costs I’ve mentioned of “lost income from not working, and compounded by missing out on promotions”) is dependent upon unreliable factors such as matching the precise profile of what those sponsors want. From pro’s offered website, they often refer mothers elsewhere without paying any of the hospital bills [2]. This also proves that by pro’s own standard, making abortions illegal would increase the subjectivity to the value of human life.

Second, an influx of babies up for adoption would harm children already waiting years for adoption [3]. This would clearly lower their value, thus even further increasing the subjectivity to the value of human life.


IV. Health
Ectopic Pregnancies
Pro has agreed that additional abortions outside the scope of this debate should be allowed.

“should be aware”
Pro has not challenged that the majority of pregnancies are unplanned, thus without careful study of the risks. He has tried to distract from it with the abstinence card, but it’s well documented that abstinence as birth control leads to increased rates of teen pregnancy [4, 5]. Worse for pro, abstinence only sex education outright increases the number of abortions [6].

“abortions also carry risks”
Pro has dropped both that abortions carry only a negligible risk, and that his own sources oppose him. This was his key justification to oppose avoiding health problems as a reason in favor of legal abortion.

Stillbirth
Glad to find out pro does not share the opinion of many pro-lifers, who insist if a woman miscarries she should be thrown in prison (yes, that’s a real thing [7]).


V. Slavery
Pro has dropped that forcing women into servitude as chattel to another is slavery (and further that forced continence of pregnancy against her wishes is indeed forced). He has instead complained about how “horrible” it is to call attention to this problem that would be created by his suggested policy. So extend.

“cannot simply murder it”
Pro has already conceded that abortion is not murder. So in a way he is right, she literally cannot murder it at any point during the pregnancy as her terminating the pregnancy is perfectly legal thus not murder.

Given that pro keeps repeating the word murder, I wonder if he speaking out against murders risked if abortions do not occur; AKA, she first gives birth and then terminates it for “inconveniencing her” as pro mentioned… I think we both agree would be a crime, but a crime to which pro’s proposal would directly increase whatever low rate of occurrence. Thus this part of pro’s case favors abortion to prevent these murders he is warning us about.

“she is now responsible for it”
Pro insists that even a rape victim who has never chosen to engage in sex also has this precise same responsibility (his strict opposition to any exemption which went so far as to make arguments about them when no one suggested any), we therefor know that the contextual responsibility under discussion is that she and no one else is in the situation, being responsible for the choices and their outcomes. This in no way implies any obligation to choose one action over another to her detriment.


VI. Constitution
Pro has brought up the constitution, but since it was proven that even the very part of it he was quoting disagreed with him, he is now asserting without reason that the constitution should be thrown out.

Someone’s right to not have death forced on them by the government without due process, has zero relation to women choosing to not continue supporting fetuses; because women are not the government. The right to life could be said to be violated if the government forced women to potentially die delivering said fetuses, and their right to liberty would definitely be violated by this.


VII. Voting Suggestions:
A few things I humbly ask judges to consider while voting…

Arguments
My key points were health and slavery. To which my opponent dropped the main thrust of both.
My opponent's key points usually went to the undefined value of human life, but were mostly proven to favor rather than oppose legal abortion to protect said value.

Sources
My external evidence have been consistently in support of my case, whereas in the first round my opponent used an hour long coffee advertisement, and in the second I literally flipped half his evidence to my side. I have called attention to this under the sources heading, and these assessments have not been challenged.

Two particularly strong sources of mine were the government source on how women’s health suffers from pregnancy; and another was BBC’s one on slavery, to which the horrors went undisputed, and that banning abortion would enslave women ended up being effectively dropped (after an attempt to argue they’re actually real estate).

S&G
Neither of us had any excessive errors.

Conduct
Neither of us had any excessive errors.


Sources:
First to address pro’s sources.
  1. Refuted.
  2. Pro gained nothing with this.
  3. Pro gained nothing with this.
  4. Somewhat flipped to my side.
  5. A source shown to be secretly advocating more abortions.
  6. Actually a good one (used on the stillborn subpoint).
  7. Actually a good one (used on the stillborn subpoint).
  8. Actually a good one (used on the stillborn subpoint).
  9. Informational against his own case.

As for my sources...
  1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring
  2. https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/placing_a_sick_child_for_adoption
  3. https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics
  4. https://thinkprogress.org/teen-pregnancies-highest-in-states-with-abstinence-only-policies-8aa0deeebb41/
  5. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
  7. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24532694
Added:
A follow-up to this has finished (different instigator, so not the same quality):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1125/should-abortion-be-illegal
Something good I will say about it, is the slavery angle goes much deeper.
Contender
#39
Added:
@PGA2.0
I blocked you from tagging me in things due to your repeated shit behavior at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
I never tagged you in anything after that, and you make this call-out in my debate only to block me to prevent yourself from being tagged. *slow-clap*
If you've gained the maternity to challenge someone to a debate, rather than just being a forum troll, bring it.
Contender
#38
Added:
--> @Caleb
Thanks for the debate. While I did not address it in my arguments, you did an amazing job! Seriously, you actually got me to concede a subpoint to one of my contentions, which is rare.
We can debate again sometime, and I'm also open to discussing the topic in a non-combative manner (just don't be an ad infinitum moron).
I probably would not have attacked sources so hard (not to mention some of the smaller points, like ectopic pregnancy), were it not for a couple people who should not vote swearing they would... For context to why it's a problem with abortion debates: On another site there was a small group of people who would vote in favor of any pro-life argument (even if the argument was babies make better foodstuff than fetuses...), because they believe pro-lifers are in need of participation trophies and public safe spaces free from their ideas being challenged... While the promised voters here are not such idiots, I was still going to stack the deck again them (for clarity, neither of them ended up voting).
Contender
#37
Added:
--> @Caleb
@ Ragnar:
PS. Since you have blocked me I cannot challenge you to debate yet you continually challenged me to do that very thing.
I.e., Added: 06.10.19 01:21PM
--> @PGA2.0
Reply
"If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law."
I choose abortion as the first challenge.
#36
Added:
--> @Caleb
@ Ragnar
This challenge to debate abortion with you, Ragnar, is a result of the match between Caleb and you. Based on the three points Cabel cited in his first round, I did not find your arguments and rebuttal particularly convincing; in fact, I thought your logic flawed and in need of further exploration. Thus, I want to exploit your reasoning further by challenging you to a debate on the same three foundational points formulated by Caleb in his opening round (R1) plus your position on slavery and dispute any other areas that may arise from these four contentions.
These contentions are,
1. The unborn child is very much alive and very much human;
2. Abortion is murder ;
3. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective;
4. Your position on slavery
I want to change the point order slightly and add a few adjustments to the wording:
1. Concerning human beings, the unborn from conception is very much alive and very much a human being;
2. Abortion causes the value of life to become subjective.
3. Abortion is murder (except when the woman's life is threatened such as by a tubal/ectopic pregnancy that will result in her death if not terminated) ;
4. Slavery association with pregnant women.
***
Four Rounds.
First Round is reserved for opening statements
No new arguments in the final round.
#35
Added:
--> @Caleb
Thanks for your reply; it’s refreshing. I think your debate was one of the better debates on this subject, so don’t feel too badly about this debate.
#34
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Congratulations to Ragnar on his victory in this debate. Thank you once again for accepting the challenge and for giving me the honor of taking on such a skilled debater for my first debate. I would love to challenge you again one day once I have become more experienced, would you be interested.
Instigator
#33
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @oromagi, @PsychometricBrain, @Speedrace
Sorry I haven't been commenting I'm currently traveling internationally and don't have a great connection to the internet. However, thank you to everyone who voted in this debate.
Instigator
#32
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I was gonna give you sources but you’re winning so I’m not gonna bother now lol
#31
Added:
--> @Speedrace
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
Reason for Mod Action> This vote was deemed sufficient as per site policy.
*******************************************************************
#30
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @oromagi
Thank you both for voting!
Contender
#29
Added:
As a result, this usage and analysis of sources within the debate by con was excellent and is very much worth the extra two points: sources to con tooz
#28
Added:
Pro claims the servitude is voluntary - con points out that if someone is unable to withdraw consent, and stop something happening to them: it ceases to become voluntary and becomes forced. Pro has no good answer to this.
On the point of slavery, while I would have liked more detail - cons argument evokes an intuitive precept to me : that one cannot sell yourself into slavery. A point that con implicitly makes here with the argument from being forced. Pro ends up mostly dropping this case.
For pro to have a chance here; he must show validity in why a woman should not be able to withdraw consent; by referencing other examples where consent cannot be withdrawn easily (contracts, the draft, some forms of military service, etc). And tie this somehow to abortion.
As it stands cons case was mostly unchallenged.
Constitution: this was not a main point, it ended up pitting two constitutional points against each other; con pointing out the omission of the due process element was particularly relevant, and pro had no real answer to it.
In the above points pro won all of them, except for one draw: and for this reason I must award arguments to con.
Sources:
I normally steer clear of awarding source, unless there is a knock out source, and/or sources provided are used against someone.
The sources here were reasonable on both sides: with some exceptions.
Con tools pros source on abortion health risks and used it to substantially bolster his own case. There were other examples; relating to the definition of chatel, that also l were ceased upon by con to bolster his own case.
Cons source concerning the failure of abstinence education, and the fact that pregnancies are unintentional both helped bolster his rebuttal by showing the key claims of pro are less valid.
#27
Added:
Point3
The value of life is subjective. This is probably pros worse point, I’m not sure what pro is really asking me to weigh here.
Pros contention doesn’t appear to clearly follow from the premise. I do not understand how one gets from allowing abortion to celebrating suicide.
Con argues that life is already subjective and the value and cost is different for each person. I found this the most confusing point from both sides, and I don’t think I quite understood either the harm pro was advancing, or really the inherent subjectivity of value con.
I would have liked pro to have explained how life has objective value with a framework: covering war, death penalty, manslaughter, etc - and for con to have done the same.
While this helps con by specifying that there is a burden of birth that shouldn’t be forced upon women, this point is otherwise unhelpful to both sides.
Health:
Con explains health risks of pregnancy. While I accept that this sets up valid reason to avoid pregnancy for women - The ectopic pregnancy point is too semantic for my liking; I feel this ectopic pregnancy example is covered by the intent of pros policy - if not by the specific wording.
Con shows abortion is generally safer than pregnancy. Con also negates pros main point that women should be aware of the issues before getting pregnant - clearly explaining that the pregnancy wasn’t intentional, and so wasn’t entered into with foreknowledge.
Pro argues that they know they could get pregnant by having sex - but as con points out, pros argument was that they knew the risks, a point that was clearly refuted by cons case.
Slavery.
This was cons best point. Con argues that a woman is a slave to the fetus if she is unable to chose to remove it.
#26
Added:
Note: this was the best anti-abortion presentation I have seen thus far by pro (I have not assessed other in progress debates), but also the best pro abortion argument presented on this site by con imo. Well done to both, this was a great debate.
Point1:
Human
Pro argues an unborn child is human, and thus shouldn’t be aborted. Con highlights that this is not relevant: citing that simply having human cells doesn’t appear relevant, and prioritizing human life is not currently a priority for political administrations.
While I buy the potential relevance issue; the latter is a bit of an appeal to hypocrisy for me. While pro points this out, he omits the issue of relevance and doesn’t explain what aspect of human life warrants protection.
Con makes it a little bit more relevant here by explaining that simply being cells doesn’t give them rights - given that being alive and out of the womb aren’t given the same rights either.
On this point: pro has to give me a compelling reason why a non intelligent collection of cells, or fetus, warrants protection on the grounds that it is “human”, this is mostly asserted as true by pro, and whole cons rebuttal has its flaws: he highlighted this fact by showing this is not the current state of the world.
Point2
I actually changed my mind whilst reading this. Pro specifically stated that murder is the unlawful killing - con points out that as abortion is legal it cannot by definition be murder. While obtuse, con can only argue against the definitions provided, and I agree with his point here.
Had the definition not been “unlawful”, there could have been more meaningful discussion: the role of euthanasia, manslaughter, war, death penalty, etc already put nuance to the concept of killing.
As no such nuance was put forward by pro - abortion cannot by pros definition be considered murder..
#25
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con did better....
J/K: RfD in comments.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in the comments
#1
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:
Unborn children are humans, humans have objective value, hence abortions should be made illegal.
Con successfully refutes Pro’s first argument by pointing out that if abortions were murder, they would already be illegal, making it futile for “abortion[s] to be made illegal” as the debate resolution states. Furthermore, with his $13k example, Con shows that the value of life is currently treated as subjective, Pro merely asserted that “human life has objective value…” which he however supports with neither argument nor sources, giving me no reason to accept his assertion. In R2 pro attempts to defend his argument by restating “we think the child has the right to live” “the human embryo… deserves a chance outside the womb alive”, these are again mere assertions not backed up by any evidence or argument. Pro merely asserts that human life has objective intrinsic value and that hence abortions should be illegal, the problem however is that Con disagrees that human life has objective value. Merely restating that the conclusion follows from the premises is futile when the premise is rejected by the opponent, Pro did nothing to support his premise (that human life has objective value), and hence he did not defend his conclusion successfully (that abortions should be made illegal). In R3 Pro makes no further attempt to show that human life has objective value other than to moralistically assert "I feel we can all agree those women [referring to those willing to have abortions] have had a severe moral breakdown.". ---> Dismantled by Con, not supported by any argument from Pro, merely asserted.
Con's case:
Con outlines that pregnancy causes lasting harm to the mother, which he supports with several examples and a source. Con furthermore outlines that the mother is not responsible to care for the ‘stranger’ (unborn child), as this would be alike to slavery as the woman would be forced to care for another being against her will.
Pro concedes that abortions are permissible in cases where the mother is “at risk of death” (presumably meaning at a considerable risk of death). Pro then goes on to claim that the mother should be aware of the health risks before becoming pregnant, which however seems irrelevant to the debate, since there are women who are not aware of this in which case abortion would be their best option. Pro has not outlined why the fact that they should’ve known beforehand means that they should be denied their preference after their mistake. Con rebuts this through pointing out that "The vast majority of abortions are for unplanned pregnancies [6], thus future knowledge is not a a point of significance.", and flips Con's own words to show that the “You cannot make the decisions for the majority based on the exceptions of the minority." Furthermore, Pro outlines that abortions also carry health risks, does however not state whether these are comparable to those of carrying out pregnancies, which hence only provides limited support for his POV. Con refutes this point by firstly arguing that there is a significant difference between the two as women are aware of the risks of abortions before undergoing them, whereas they are not considering the risks before an unplanned pregnancy, additionally, Con flips Pro's sources to show that “These problems are really rare, and they’re usually easy to treat” suggesting that the harm of pregnancy is more significant than that of abortions. In his final round Pro again merely asserts "the mother should have known" without stating why this would justify prohibiting abortions for those women who have not known. Again Pro merely makes assertions which are not supported by argument. --> Con's argument stands strong as Pro's counter-arguments suffer from lack of detail (e.g. weighing harm of pregnancy vs abortions) and lack of elaboration (why it matters that the women should've known), Con pointed both of these issues out (and refuted them by citing sources), which were not addressed by Pro who merely restated his prior assertions.
Con’s slavery argument is addressed by Pro, who argues that it uses the same logic as his abortion argument which Con accused of being a non-sequitur. Pro does not outline how they resemble each other, hence his assertion has little value. To defend his case, Pro defines the womb as real-estate to be excluded from the definition of chattel, Con rebuts this through citing a longer definition showing that the woman is, in fact, not real-estate, basically ending the argument as Pro takes a different approach suggesting that the woman "chose to create this life" and is hence responsible for her own servitude. How the choice (which Con pointed out is not a real choice as abortions tend to be for unwanted pregnancies) suggests that abortions should be illegal is again not explained, merely asserted. --> Con's case once more stands strong, well-rebutted against mere assertions by Pro.