Instigator / Con
26
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

Abortion Should Be Legal

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
12
0
Sources points
8
4
Spelling and grammar points
4
4
Conduct points
2
2

With 4 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...

semperfortis
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Pro
10
1641
rating
62
debates
66.13%
won
Description
~ 415 / 5,000

BoP is shared.
No deconstruction semantics.
No arguments regarding the philosophy of morality.
Pro has affirm the legality of abortion for at least some period of pregnancy.

Con has to defend bans on all abortion except in cases where abortion is required to save the mother's life and for cases of rape.

Debate format:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Case
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals with no new arguments

Round 1
Con
Prologue
Thanks, Speedrace for accepting. We have agreed privately that round one will now facilitate opening arguments.


== NEG ==

My case is outlined by the following:

1. Abortion is the unjust extermination of a human life and is prima facie morally objectionable
2. Humanity extends to the unborn
3. At the moment of conception, there is no sound criteria to determine that the unborn are less important/human than those already born

The first two can be reiterated into a logical format, where the veracity of each propositional iteration can be provided:


C1.
P1: Living humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P2: If humans come into being at the moment of conception, they ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P3: Humans come into being at the moment of conception
C: Humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws at the moment of conception

C2.
P1: It is prima facie morally wrong to kill an innocent human being
P2: If abortions end the life of an innocent human being it should be illegal
P3: Abortions kill innocent human beings
C: Abortions should be illegal

==

C1. Premise One
The importance of upholding our rights and liberty are quintessential in fair and equal existence. I am sure my opponent and I both agree that laws are crucial to affirm human rights and liberty which are fundamental to any modern society. Moreover, I believe it is fairly reasonable to assert that any unjust killing of another (excluding moral dillemas e.g war and capital punishment) is morally wrong. Hence, it would follow that the killing of an innocent human being is prima facie wholly immoral.


C1. Premise Two
If the right to protect human life is upheld, it would intuitively follow that if it is proven that human life begins at conception, they should possess the same inalienable rights, any other member of the communinty has.


C1. Premise Three

This premise is valid via posteriori. Scientific consensus provides evidence that life begins at conception in spades. It can be observed in Patten's textbook, Human Embryology:

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (1)
Moreover, this is corroborated by another scholarly entry by Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School, who states:

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception” (1)
Furthermore, when conception first occurs the single celled 'zygote' already possesses the DNA blueprint for the unique new human. Characteristics including, sex, eye and hair colour, race etc. are all harmoneously included in this blueprint. (2)

The scientific consensus regarding the nature of the beginning of human existence ratifies this premise and renders it egregious to classify a zygote or any later rendition anything less than human. The lack of physical development is not valid criteria to rebuke the inalianable rights it ought to possess, as a human never stops developing, even after birth. Moreover, although the unborn are contingent upon a mother to survive, their unique independence and right to life ought to be preserved, as a man's life is preserved when he is contingent upon a life support machine.



C1. Conclusion
Hence, the conclusion is valid via modus ponens.


==


C2. Premise One
This is farily axiomatic and I commend its veracity to my opponent. Anarchy would ensue if all had the right to end another's life.


C1. Premise Two
Again, it's reasonable to deduce that if an activity holds the sole intent of killing innocent humans, it should be illegal.


C1. Premise Three
Abortion is defined as:
"induced expulsion of a human fetus" (2)
Which results in the termination/death of the fetus, which has been proven to be human. Hence, it intuitively follows that abortion is in violation of one's rights and ought to be illegalised.


C1. Conclusion
Hence, the conclusion is valid via modus ponens.


==

3. At the moment of conception, there is no sound criteria to determine that the unborn are less important/human than those already born
Here I argue there are no discernible criteria that can distinctively under class an unborn baby from the unborn.
The only differences that seperate the unborn and the born are:
  • Consciousness
  • Development
  • Experience
I will prove that none of these would successfully undermine the livelihood of the unborn relative to the born.

Consciousness
One aspect that seperates the born from the unborn. An argument could be made that as an unborn baby is not conscious of itself and its surroundings it is morally acceptable to kill it. This would rest upon two cruxes:
-It is okay to kill it as it currently is unconscious
or
-It is okay to kill it as it has never experienced consciousness before

Beginning at the first crux, this is obviously an absurd testament to kill someone. Why would it be deemed immoral and illegal for me to kill an unconscious person as they sleep, but it is okay to kill an unconsicous unborn baby?

The second: this is also absurd as the argument that it has never experienced consciousness is not the same argument that it will never experience consciousness. Even though it isn't conscious it will be when it is born. It is analogous to killing someone in a coma when they are due to be out of the coma in 9 months time.


Development
This is incoherent as humans continue developing their whole lives, hence the argument would have to deduce why a life that is rapidly developing is less valuable than a life that is more developed and continuing to develop more slowly.


Experience
Similar to development, this is incoherent as humans continue their experience throughout their whole lives, some with less experience than others. None of wihch accurately compares the value of one life to another.

==

Summary
My argument is contingent upon the notion that human life begins at conception and that human life ought to be protected through law. I have provided a cumbersome amount of evidence that affirms this position, accompanied by the framework that there is no way to under value an unborn child over one that is already born. Hence the resolution is negated.

Over to you, Pro.


References





Pro
The following are the premises for the Pro case:

1. Abortion gives women power over their own bodies.
2. Fetuses are not human beings (at least for most of the pregnancy), and therefore have no real value.
3. Legal abortion prevents women from using unsafe abortion practices.
4. Women who get abortions suffer from less mental conditions than women who are denied abortions.
5. Women who are denied abortions suffer from many negative effects.
6. Abortion reduces crime.
7. Abortion reduces stress on taxpayers as well as the deficit.
8. Unwanted babies suffer from many disadvantages.

Premise 1

At the end of the day, it is the woman's body! The state should not dictate what she can and cannot do to it, as long as it does not cause harm to any parties involved. Abortion allows a woman to determine the course of her life. If a man such as myself gets a woman pregnant, we have the option to leave all responsibility for that! However, the woman faces a much larger burden, and taking one of her tools to deal with that burden is not right.

Premise 2

Fetuses are not actual human beings, specifically legally. One way we know this because fetuses are not counted in censuses. Also, a person's age begins from birth, not conception. Therefore, fetuses have no real value outside of the sentimental value that we as moral beings may place on them. [1]

Premise 3

When abortion is outlawed, women who desperately want them must go to illegal shops to get them, and these shops are not verified nor certified, and can many times be extremely dangerous. They may even try to do an abortion themselves! In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. After Roe v. Wade, there were only 2. "The World Health Organization estimated that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access." [1]

Premise 4

Many studies have been done that show that women who are denied abortions feel angry and regretful, while 95% of women who got abortions said they thought it was the right decision a week after. [1]

Premise 5

Studies were done that show that women who are denied abortions are three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years after women who had received abortions. 76% of the denied ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of those allowed. The same study showed that those denied are more likely to stay with an abusive partner and are twice as likely to suffer domestic abuse. [1]

Premise 6

18 years after abortion was allowed, crimes rates plummetted, and they dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. [1]

Premise 7

A study done on an anti-abortion bill that disallowed abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy found that it would increase the federal deficit by $225 million overr the course of nine years. That stress is placed on tax-paying citizens. [1]

Premise 8

Studies show that unintended babies are associated much more with "birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding." [1]

Conclusion

From this information, it is obvious that allowing abortion gives women their due rights and reduces many negative effects that they may suffer if denied an abortion. Legalizing abortion increases overall safety, and because of that, must be sustained in our country.

Over to Con! :)

Sources

Round 2
Con

== Rebuttals ==

Pro's argument is synthesized by 8 premises. I will assess each individually and convey why none of these effectively affirm the legalization of abortion.

1. Abortion gives women power over their own bodies

Here Pro asserts that an unborn baby is a part of the woman's body, hence she deserves the rights and liberties to do with it as she wishes. This is unsourced and commits a *bare assertion fallacy*, until Pro deduces this via a priori or posteriori viz. until Pro provides scientific evidence for this claim his argument is void.

However, for it to be scientifically true that the unborn child is a part of the mother's body, it would entail that the child would share the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. However, this is not the case. As aforementioned, each cell of the unborn's body is *genetically distinct from the mother's* [1]. Furthermore, other intrinsic differences between the unborn and the mother further convey how this claim is unfounded. In many cases, the unborn child has a different blood type - one body cannot function with two different blood types, so how can they both be of the same body?[1] This is further ratified by United States Surgeon General, C. Everret Koop, who asserts:
"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed." [2]
Thus, biology and logic are congruent witth the fact that the unborn child is *not an extension of the women's body* and is in fact an independent human.




2. Fetuses are not human beings, and therefore have no real value

Pro asserts:
"Fetuses are not actual human beings, specifically legally"
Here, Pro doesn't affirm that a feotus is *biologically inhuman*, but only affirms that it is *legally inhuman*. This is problematic for two reasons:
-It presumes that law is infallible
-It implies legal definition is to superscede biological definition

Just because law currently doesn't value the unborn and the born equally doesn't mean it shouldn't. The law and current definitions in the law are fallible which is why law is constantly debated. History is riddled with immoral governments and institutes that governed immoral laws e.g slavery where, legally, blacks were undervalued relative to white people. This was deemed immoral and is why it is not a part of modern society today. Hence, just because current law dictates that the unborn shouldn't be counted as legal human beings, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Moreover, I have provided a preponderance of scientific consensus that deems the unborn as an individual human being and I commend that legal definition should not superscede biological definition, as science is conclusive and as I have pointed out law is often imperfect and is constantly changing.

Pro then procedes to assert:
"Therefore, fetuses have no real value outside of the sentimental value that we as moral beings may place on them"
Here, Pro sees value only within the current legal framework which I have already proven to be illogical. The "sentimental value" we would be placing on the unborn would be consistent with the general moral values we place on eachother, e.g 'it is immoral to kill another human'. Because the unborn is biologically and scientifically part of the human community and they ought to have the same value as we place on ourselves. This argument would only have relevance if Pro attempted to undermine all moral value that humans place on eachother., e.g 'human life has no real value outside of the sentimental value we place on them'.

Hence, this premise is inapt in undervaluing the unborn as legal definitions ought not to superscede scientific definitions.





3. Legal abortion prevents women from using unsafe abortion practices
Here Pro affirms the legality of abortion is prudent because it provides women with a safe and viable outlet. However, there are two issues posited with this:
-It is illogical to prevent the outlaw of something just because it would occur anyway
-In a utilitarian framework it is more damaging to legalize abortion

Laws tend not to eradicate whatever it prohibits; illegalization of drugs resorts in illegal selling of drugs and so on. This does not mean it shouldn't be made law. Despite murder being illegal, murder still occurs, this is not logical proof to legalize murder. Moreover, without the criminalization of abortion there would be no governmental method to punish people for committing this immoral act, as it has been proven to be. For example, those caught performing illegal abortions would be reprehensible, whereas if it were legal they wouldn't be.

Moreover, in a utilitarian framework, there is a surplus of 'net good' when abortion is illegal relative to when it isn't. This can be depicted with abortion statistics. The World Health Organization estimated that there are 55.7 million safe abortions per annum and that there are around 25 million unsafe abortions.[3] Hence, illegalizing abortion would prevent a net total of 55.7 million abortions, instead of having a net total of 80.7 million abortions per annum if it were legal.

Lastly, no-one is forcing women to have unsafe abortions; it is their own agency and their own risk that they do so.



4. Women who get abortions suffer from less mental conditions than women who are denied abortions.
Pro states that many women who are denied abortions feel angry and regretful, yet there are also many women who feel angry and regretful after having an abortion. He then states that 95% of women who have aborted their child feels like it was the right decision a week after. This is misleading as it is likey you'll support any decision you choose if it's recent to when you made the decision viz. this only extends to women's opinion one week after the procedure, where no long term data was provided which likely would have shown that many women's opinion would change after years of maturing and reflecting in retrospect.

Moreover, no evidence was provided which actually affirms this fourth premise, Pro provided no evidence regarding post-abortion mental conditions and therefore his fourth premise is a bare assertion.

Moreover, from Pro's own source, it is asserted that abortions *cause psychological damage*. A peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of public Health found that:
"Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression."

"women who underwent an abortion had "significantly higher" anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination"

"women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term" [4]
Hence, Pro's own source provides evidence that abortions also cause negative health affects post-abortion.




5. Women who are denied abortions suffer from many negative effects
Pro Professes that women who are denied abortions are more likely to be unemployed and mpoverished.The problem here is, "denied abortions" can be simply be replaced with "having a child" and it can clearly be seen why especially young women who have children outside wed-lock are disadvantaged in a capitalistic society. This is why it is often advised not to have children outside wed-lock and to refrain from having children until you are in a point of your life where its feasible as children are expensive and burdensome.

In terms of domestic abuse, I concur that women are more likely to stay in abusive relationships if there is a child involved. However, the child can easily be put up for adoption instead of killing it. Each outcome removes the tie between the mother and the baby.



6, Abortion reduces crime
In the source Pro uses, it states that children who were intended to be aborted are more likely to commit crime because they were brought up in nonoptimal environments. Again, this can be rectified through putting the child up for adoption rather than outright killing the child.

7. Abortion reduces stress on taxpayers as well as the deficit.
Pro stated that abortion reduces stress on taxpayers but doesn't mention the reason why. In his source it states that the increase in federal deficit is due to:

"the increased need for Medicaid coverage"
This is obviously true, because when the population increases it is logical that there is going to be an increase for Medicaid coverage as there are more people. This is inapt evidence, as killing 50% of the population would also reduce the need for Medicaid coverage but this is axiomatically immoral and would never be proposed, which is why it is irrelevant in the discussion of abortion.




8. Unwanted babies suffer from many disadvantages.
This is also improper evidence as it is logically inconsistent. Unwanted babies aren't the only disadvantaged; a wanted baby born in an impoverished, lower class environment is inherently disadvantaged but doesn't give us the right to kill them.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Moreover, I will provide an additional refutation that ultimately disproves premises 3-8.


The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)
P1: The NAP ought not to be violated
P2: Abortion violates the NAP
P3: If an agent violates NAP then it should be prohibited by the government
C: Abortion should be prohibited


Premise One
The NAP is a political axiom deeming all initiation of aggression of any individual and their property as inherently wrong [5]. This is a fundamental piller of any successful society, so much so, I would be surprised if my opponent didn't accept this as a truism. If Pro does disagree I will support this in the next round.

Premise Two
Abortion contravenes the NAP by the forceful initiation of aggression towards it and is therefore forbidden per the NAP.

Premise Three
From premise one, I believe my opponent, the voters and I would all agree that the NAP is a crucial facet of any institution and that would entail that anything that contravenes the NAP should be prohibited by the government.

Conclusion
Hence, the conclusion logically follows.



== The consequences of enforcing the NAP are necessary ==

Pro's premises 3-8 all convey a negative byproduct from adhering to the NAP. I argue that enforcing the NAP is more important than the negative effects it may cause.

An example of the NAP would be to prohibit murder. A consequence of this would be a greater population and would cost the government more for welfare. Here, it can be seen that adhering to the NAP is prudent even though negative, indirect consequences may occur.

So even if Pro can validate premises 3-8, it wouldn't be enough to logically uphold the resolution.



Conclusion
I have proven each of Pro's premises to be inapt in affirming the resolution and to lack cogency. I have proven that the unborn deserve the rights and liberties as any other human being as enforced by the NAP. I have shown that premises 3-8 are all indirect consequences that may be caused from adhering to the NAP, but have postulated that these are all necessary as the NAP is penultimate to a functioning society.

Over to Pro :)






References
[2] C. Everett Koop, M.D., and Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979), 40.
Pro
To topple my opponent's argument, I need only look at his premises.

C1.
P1: Living humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P2: If humans come into being at the moment of conception, they ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws
P3: Humans come into being at the moment of conception
C: Humans ought to have rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws at the moment of conception
Human: relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.

Person: A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.

If a person is defined in such a manner, then a fetus most certainly does not fit that definition. It is the potentiality of life, but at the moment it itself is not an actual person.

My opponent quotes scientists who say that an individual human life begins in conception. However, this does not mean that the individual human life is the same thing has a human being person, or rather a functioning person capable of interacting with the world. And notice, I said "capable" not "at the moment." People who are sleeping or are in comas are "capable" at that moment in time of interacting with the world, they just aren't because their brains are elsewhere.

Teenagers are not guaranteed the same rights and liberties as retired elders, who get certain retirement benefits. Likewise, adults aren't guaranteed the same leniency in crimes if they are arrested as teenagers. No one would say that either party "ought" to have said benefits, simply because they belong to a certain age group, and furthermore, a certain group of development.

Therefore, one cannot say that "living humans" are guaranteed rights and liberties enforced by judicial laws without clarifying exactly what rights and liberties. The question then becomes are these unborn beings guaranteed the right to life?

My opponent attacks the development argument by saying that the argument must distinguish between certain levels of development. This is not true. Rather, the development argument is valid because a fetus cannot accomplish any of the tasks that a living human can. Babies can accomplish at least some of these and can survive on their own (barring physical diseases and/or a lack of nutrition). Babies have consciousness and sentience, although limited, while fetuses have none, up to a certain point in the pregnancy. Fetuses have the potential to be functioning human beings, which is what my opponent is putting stress on. However, doesn't that mean we should value individual sperm and egg cells, which also have the potential to form into functioning human beings?

The development argument doesn't put stress on levels and/or speed of development, but rather what has been developed up until that point.

Now, of course, my opponent may point to people sleeping and argue that by my logic, they are not living human beings. However, for one, sleep does not entail being unconscious but rather being in one's subconscious. [4] He then may point to people in comas, who are unconscious. However, let's not confuse the word.

Unconscious: not conscious.

Being "not conscious" implies that one can be conscious. One would not describe a wall as "unconscious." It would be more accurate to describe a wall as "lacking conscious." And that is exactly the case with people in comas. Furthermore, families have the option to take people in comas off of life support if they choose to. So, if anything, this example bolsters my point by showing how an inanimate human suddenly can have his/her life stripped away in certain situations.

In this case, fetuses before a certain stage in the pregnancy would be more accurately described as "lacking conscious," not "unconscious." This would then mean they are not necessarily guaranteed the same rights as other humans.\

Because of this premise 1 cannot function without further clarity, as well as premise 2.

Final Note

I do have a question for my opponent. If the fetus really is a life (this is no concession on my part), then why is its life valued when the pregnancy was an innocent escape but not when it was forced on the woman (rape)? Shouldn't it have the right to live in both situations (in your view)?

Sources

Round 3
Con
Prologue
Ultimately I aim to show that my opponent's refutation is predicated on a cherry picked definition of 'person' and that his implications regarding consciousness ultimately do not affirm the resolution.

== Aff ==

What constitutes a person?

Here, Pro strawmans the moral premise behind the argument by using a cherrypicked definition of 'person' to deem the unborn as inhuman. He asserts 'person' to be defined as:
"A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility."
I argue that this doesn't successfully refute my affirmation.
Firstly, it is interesting that Pro chooses to use this defintion, because from the source he cited 'person' is actually defined as:
"a human being regarded as an individual"
which wouldn't really affirm his stance at all. However, analysing his definition it is clear that this definition has poor veracity in the context of this debate. There are many definitions for human, person, humankind, personhood etc. however nothing superscedes the biological definition of human, which I cite from the New World Encyclopedia to be:
"In biological terms, a human being, or human, is any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens" [1]
Here, this definition would better suit the discussion for a variety of reasons. Analysing Pro's definition there are a series of problems. Firstly, Pro's definition asserts it is requiste that each 'person' have the ability to reason. I argue newborn babies cannot 'reason'. Reason can be defined as: 'a statement offered in explanation or justification' [2]. It is evident newborn babies, like their unborn counterparts cannot 'reason'. Further demonstrations of this would also prevent many people with mental disablement from being considered people, as people with late stages of Alzheimer's "lose the ability to respond appropriately and are unable to converse with others" [3]. For the same reasons it is not okay to  exterminate the newborns and the mentally impaired, it should likewise not be okay to exterminate the unborn. Hence, the property of reasoning is inapt for defining a person. Moreover, the definition presupposes all people to have a legal and cultural framework. This further demonstrates that this definition of 'person' has no scientific basis as it is scientifically proven human beings have existed long before a solid legal framework was synthesized.

Pro concludes this argument with:
"If a person is defined in such a manner, then a fetus most certainly does not fit that definition. It is the potentiality of life, but at the moment it itself is not an actual person."
I agree, per Pro's cherrypicked definition it would not; but with my cited definition it would be. Pro and I can debate semantics but I commend this is useless. I can choose definitions which will allow unborns to be considered people, and Pro can contend with other definitions that show it is not. Hence, the most objective ground Pro and I should compromise with is scientific consensus, to which I have provided in preponderance to corroborate that human life begins at conception.

Pro even agrees with the scientific consensus, but asserts that:
"this does not mean that the individual human life is the same thing has a human being person, functioning person capable of interacting with the world"
I have already shown 'human being person' to be an arbitrary definition cherrypicked by Pro. Moreover, he implies that the unborn are inhuman because they are not capable of interacting with the world. This is rather untrue, albeit it may not be the outside world, but unborn children directly interact inside the mother's womb. Even at conception the unborn zygote are living cells which divide at their own accord [4], quite similar to bacteria which are also considered to be living organisms. Moreover, it is a bare assertion to assume people should only be considered if they are capable of interacting with the world.

Ultimately, this argument falls short for the following reasons:
1. Pro's argument is purely semantic and holds no moral or utilitarian affirmation
2. You cannot deduce something as inhuman because it lacks, or is absent of the ability to interact

1.
In Pro's refutation, he concedes that scientifically a human's life begins at conception, but asserts that this is different to a "human being person". This is illogical as if abortion were to be legalized Pro would knowingly be exterminating human lives, but just because these human lives can't function similar to the average person, it is okay to kill them. Moreover "human being person" is very arbitrary and relies solely on the cherrypicked definition Pro proposed. Pro's refutation lacks moral justification, as even if his refutation maintained, it would still be true that in 9 months time the unborn child will have everything that Pro constitutes as a human being. This brings me to the second point.

2.
Pro uses an abitrary and *non-objective* measurement to which constitutes what is human being. He affirms that because the unborn aren't very interactive, and not very functioning relative to an average person would mean that the unborn has no intrinsic value. However, it has been shown that the unborn can interact and function, just not like the average person. This begs the question, how much function/interaction does one need to be a human? This is the issue with arbitrary standards. Pro might say that when the baby is born it is deemed a human, but why? Newborn children aren't very functional or interactive at all. Barely any functional or interactive property seperates a newborn baby from a late-term unborn baby. Newborns can only see objects and colours up to 15 inches away [5], they can't walk, talk, reason or pretty much do anything apart from eat and sleep which is what the unborn do as well. So why is this level of functionality and interaction objectively superior to the functionality and interaction that an unborn baby has?

Lastly, Pro asserts:
"People who are sleeping or are in comas are "capable" at that moment in time of interacting with the world, they just aren't because their brains are elsewhere."
Pro cites a logical contradiction. He says people who are in comas are "capable" of interaction, but their "brains are elsewhere". This is a bare assertion, and has no logical sense, clearly someone in a coma lacks the agency to interact with anything and would deem them incapable. It is more accurate to say that someone in a coma was capable and will be capable when they exit the coma, but are currently incapbable.


==


Not everyone has the same rights

Here Pro's argument can be annotated as such:

P1: Different groups of development have different rights
P2:  The unborn are of a different development group and therefore have different rights
P3: If different groups of development have different rights,one cannot say "living humans" are guaranteed rights and liberties

However, Pro is logcially inconsistent. He provides veracity for the first premise by saying that "teenagers are not guaranteed the same rights as retired elders". However, all this does is depict that different development groups don't all have the same rights. He then asks the question:
"are these unborn beings guaranteed the right to life?"
This is logically inconsistent because he established that there are different development groups to which he also included teenagers and the elderly. So why is it this question only includes the unborn? Yes the unborn can be established as an independent development group, but so are teenagers and retired elders, so why should teenagers and elders be guaranteed the right to life?

All this argument does is either show that there is a current inequality in the amount of rights each subset of human has or he is morally questioning why any development group should be guaranteed the right to life. I would respond to the latter by referencing the NAP that I presume Pro has no issue with as he didn't attempt to refute it within his rebuttal.

Hence, this is evidently inapt in negating the resolution.


==


Development

Here Pro rebuts by attempting to under value the unborn by professing that:
"a fetus cannot accomplish any of the tasks that a living human can"
However, this is a bare assertion and holds absolutely no veracity. In fact, research suggests that an unborn baby can listen to and even recognise the voice of its mother [6]. Moreover, I have shown that newborn babies are effectively useless in terms of interactive and functional capacity. In fact, I assert it has more in common with the unborn than it does with a fully mature adult.

The unborn and the newborn both:
-Live
-Eat
-Sleep - even REM sleep [6]
-Excrete


Hence, it can be seen that the unborn have much in common in functionality to their newborn counterparts. Moreover, I have shown that the measurement of functionality and interactivity to be an illogical, non-objective standard to base life upon and that there is no scientific backing for this standard.

Even comparing a zygote to a newborn baby would be intellectually dishonest, as both are scientifically 'living'. Even though a zygote can't necessarily "accomplish a task" it can accomplish the task of living, cell division etc. Just as a newborn or any other living human does. Without an objective framework for valuing one human life over another this argument is incoherent.


==


Consciousness

Here Pro states that people who are in comas are 'not conscious'. Therefore, the argument to be had is how this is similar in relation to a 'not conscious' zygote.
Pro asserts:

"Being "not conscious" implies that one can be conscious One would not describe a wall as "unconscious." It would be more accurate to describe a wall as "lacking conscious." And that is exactly the case with people in comas"
If anything this affirms my stance. Pro agrees that people in comas are 'not conscious' and even demonstrates than an inanimate object cannot become conscious. If anything, this shows that fetuses, even if, at the time, are 'not conscious', the fact they are guaranteed to be 'conscious' in 9 months time which demonstrates that they are not 'inanimate' as Pro implies.

If Pro tries to contend this by reiterating, we still have this scenario:

A person in a coma is admittedly 'not conscious' as stated by Pro. While the person is in a coma, they have no agency, volition, interaction or functionality by Pro's standards. While there is no further development the person shall remain in a coma viz. remain 'not conscious'. Hence, there is no logical standard here which truly seperates a man in a coma from a zygote. Both will be conscious if enough time is abundant. Thus comparing a zygote to a 'wall' is therefore absurd, because the wall will not be conscious in 9 months time.


Pro then appeals to extremes by stating that familes can pull the plug on life support if they choose to. However, this is an appeal to extremes fallacy, this tends to only happen when the chances of recovery are futile, I expect Pro would not posit the same moral question if the person in the coma was expected to recover.


==


Overall
Pro's refutation is contingent upon that despite human life being scientifically deduced at conception, they are not to be considered human beings as a society. Moreover, he states that unborn babies (throughout most of the pregnancy) lack consciousness and are unable to perform tasks as newborn babies can.

I assert I have successfully upheld the veracity of my arguments and that even if Pro's refutation was sound, it still wouldn't negate the resolution.

Pro's argument lacks moral premise

Even if Pro successfully proved the distinction involving development and consciousness between newborns and the unborn, he has offered no moral implication why this would permit the use of abortion when they will certainly meet Pro's standards in 9 months time. Pro didn't argue against the NAP, which is a political axiom intended to protect an individual from violence. Even though Pro contends that the unborn aren't individuals I assert that scientific definition ought to trump any legal or any pseudo-scientific parody of the definition.

Pro's argument lacks objective standard

I have shown that the unborn are *scientifically deduced humans* which acts as the only objective standard to compare the unborn to those who are already born. Pro attempts to under value the unborn by stating they have no real function and they "cannot accomplish any tasks a born human can" however, since both have been proven to be human lives, why can't it be reversed: already born humans have no value because they can perform tasks an unborn human can't? When has the ability to perform tasks ever been an objective standard to deduce human value. Moreover, just because zygotes aren't currently conscious, they are similar to those in comas as they will become conscious after a period of time.

Why does the current inability to function as an average human being trump the future ability to function as an average human being?

Therefore, the resolution is successfully upheld as my arguments regarding the immorality of abortion still stand as I have defended that the unborn are scientifically deduced lives and should deserve the rights and liberties we all deserve. I have shown that Pro attempted to cherry pick a definition to invalidate the humanly value of the unborn but I have shown that all scientific research infers that the unborn are human by biological definition.

==


Response to Pro
I would happily answer privately, but the case of abortion in extreme cases like rape were not included in the resolution, so I need not answer as it is irrelevant to the debate at hand.



References
Pro
I have to forfeit this round because I'm gonna be gone all day tomorrow and I literally won't have the time to reply so yeah
Round 4
Con
I will waive this round and allow my opponent to rebut.
Pro
I have to concede at this point lol, I still don't have the time to argue but I figured I would lose anyway lol

TO VOTERS

Could you tell me if you think I would've won anyway from the arguments so far? Because if I would've lost anyway then I won't feel so bad XD