Should Abortion Be Illegal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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 human 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.
First Round is reserved for opening statements
No new arguments in the final round.
" I shall not be making any real arguments or rebuttals here (to do such would be a conduct violation to say the least), instead I shall merely give a quick preamble." 
Four Rounds.First Round is reserved for opening statements.No new arguments in the final round. 
"My Perspective:Put simply, I don’t hate women. This causes me to be in favor of their continued rights." 
"Given that pro keeps repeating the word murder, I wonder if he [is] 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 [it] 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." 
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." 
"the natural and fundamental group unit of society"
"entitled to protection." 
- “What is the unborn?”Some collection of cells which have not been born, and without intervention may or may not ever be born.In context, at some point late in pregnancy one could be considered a viable human being. However, I disagree with insistence that every fertilized embryo in a lab is a living human being “equal in value” and significance to all human beings; which given that pro insists otherwise (“from conception is very much alive and very much a human being”), we’ll have some argument points about it.
- “Why should a woman's choice override the life of the unborn?” & “what does this have to do with the debate? It is irrelevant.”
Pro actually insisted women’s rights are “irrelevant” to a debate about controlling their bodies against their will. In 98.7% of abortions the fetus has not reached the phase in development where pain is possible [2, 3], but guaranteed undue hardships befall the mother should she be forced to proceed with a pregnancy (see: Slavery).
- “Are human beings intrinsically valuable or are morals completely subjective?”
That is pretty blatant false dichotomy , so neither.Humans (especially by pro’s definition which does not necessitate persons) can have a massively varied value (MLK vs a random and potentially non-viable embryo in a lab for example), and objective evil like rape do not become ok under any circumstances.
"I will not be responding to the numerous Ad Hominem attacks..."
"Some collection of cells which have not been born, and without intervention may or may not ever be born."
"In context, at some point late in pregnancy one could be considered a viable human being."
"...I disagree with [the] insistence that every fertilized embryo in a lab is a living human being "equal in value" and significance to all human beings..."
"Pro actually insisted women's rights are "irrelevant" to a debate about controlling their bodies against their will."
"Are human beings intrinsically valuable or are morals completely subjective?"
"That is pretty blatant false dichotomy , so neither."
"Humans (especially by pro's definition which does not necessitate persons) can have a massively varied value (MLK vs a random and potentially non-viable embryo in a lab for example), and objective evil like rape do not become ok under any circumstances."
1. "...non-viable embryo in labs
2. "fully human or fully alive" ...[is] too broad to be meaningful"
"Due to pro’s problem with subjective value..."
"...prove diminished value of everyone uniquely caused by abortions."
"...in direct violation to the US constitution."
- Science/biology, philosophy, and logic affirm the unborn is a human being by nature, from fertilization. Con continually confused "functionality/ability" with capacity, level of development, and nature. Functionality does not alter the nature of a human being. I previously argued that human cells are different from a whole human organism which the unborn is by nature, biologically. Con has not directly disputed these two claims nor the evidence I presented.
- It matters what the unborn is as both the Declaration of Independence and US law regard human beings as equal under the law. For justice, equality is necessary. The law should protect the freedom of every American, every human being, or else there is no justice.
Con: "Pro complains my "language is discriminatory and devaluing," yet were all human beings equal and "unchanging" as he claims, it would be literally impossible for my language to arbitrarily change their value."
- “Pro has dropped that the unborn are not people”
- “that the specific crime of murder relates to
solely to people”
- “no reason murder should relate to non-people
has been shown”
- That the unborn “experience no harm by their destruction and
failing to destroy them would inflict harm on various people (at least when
mothers are unwilling to continue pregnancy).”
“would rescue the children, likely for such reasons as not wanting children to painfully burn to death, nor the families to suffer the tangible loss. In [contrast], the destroyed embryos feel no pain, nor have the families invested as much time in them, etc. Clearly these two things (even with both being made of human DNA) are not of equal importance.”
“Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher unsafe abortion rates. The average unsafe abortion rate was more than four times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies” and “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher levels of maternal mortality. The average maternal mortality ratio was three times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies” -United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs 
P1: If someone says X, they’ve committed fallacy Y.P2: Various quotes from pro which say X.C: Therefore, pro has committed fallacy Y.
- https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/AbortionPoliciesReproductiveHealth.pdf highlights on page 1.