In this, ‘people-seeds’ flying through the window represent conception and mesh screens represent contraception. While attempting to protect oneself from unwanted consequences, a person still finds they have people sprouting in their home. JJT asks would it be impermissible to rid a home of unwanted consequences (and the burdens they represent) when reasonable precautions were taken to avoid this outcome?
This scenario is analogous to the occurrence of a pregnancy in spite of contraceptives being employed. The pill has a failure rate of 7% - which means 7 out of every 100 women using only the pill will become pregnant every year. Condoms have an even higher rate of failure at 13% 
. This is a very real concern - contraceptives are no guarantee against pregnancy. As mentioned previously, pregnancy disrupts body, education, employment, and family. Abortion allows a woman to maintain control of her life when countermeasures fail.
Darth suggests Guttmacher submits “only numbers and no conclusive reasoning”. However, this is incorrect. In Guttmacher’s own words:
“The path toward safer abortions is clear: The benefits of expanding legal grounds for abortion begin to accrue as soon as women no longer have to risk their health by resorting to clandestine abortion. […] Highly restrictive laws do not eliminate the practice of abortion, but make those that do occur more likely to be unsafe.”
Additionally, pointing to factors considered by Guttmacher, Con extrapolates a lack of diligence on their part suggesting the data unreliable. This simply does not follow. If my opponent has reason to believe the data is inadequate, then he will need to rely on something more substantial than his own intuitions. To that end, no data supporting a different conclusion has been submitted.
Beyond this, DB argues a need for abortion is overstated because it is the result of “most of the time [women] not using contraception”, but this is not supported by data – at least not explicitly. Even his own citation states other reasons for unintended pregnancy (‘using contraception incorrectly’). This does not suggest lack of contraception as a primary reason for unwanted pregnancy. Furthermore, this 'lack of contraception’ overlooks other reasons for abortion such as when sex is forced (contraception may not necessarily be possible), abortion might be required for threat to the mother’s life or fetal inviability (pregnancy might be preferred but impossible), and that it takes two to get pregnant (men have a role in unwanted pregnancies). In short, Con has grossly misrepresented reasons for abortion and who might be ultimately responsible.
That being said, let’s get to the core of DB’s case.
1. He holds that human life begins at conception.
2. He equates human life to personhood.
3. He holds that abortion is a violation of the unborn’s rights, and that;
4. Abortion is acceptable for cases of rape or when the mother’s life are endangered.
I believe this to be a fair summary and will proceed on that assumption.
1 - I accept human life begins at conception. It would be absurd to think that the product of two humans could be anything other than human.However, this isn't very helpful to his case. Being human is not justification to deny the right of other humans (more on this later). Not to mention, there are instances where being human doesn't prevent the disabling life support. So this alone cannot lead us to a legitimate rational objection to abortion.
2 -I think it is overly simplistic to equate all human life to persons deserving of rights. As mentioned above, we as a society recognize that life support can be removed from some human life (brain-death). However, I will not argue personhood unless my opponent feels it is necessary. We so often see the back and forth over whether a fetus is a person, when personhood begins, etc. Ultimately, I feel this distinction is immaterial to the abortion debate. If rights are irrevocable and equal, then then the personhood of an entity acting on a woman's body against her will is no defeator of her inalienable rights.
3 – This is a distorted view of rights. Assuming the unborn have rights, there is no right to use the body of another person without consent. There is no size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency which allows one person to co-opt another person’s biology against their will. So, even if the assertion that human life begins at conception (read as ‘personhood begins at conception’) is accepted, it does not disallow the rights of others.
4 – While I agree abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or a threat the mother’s life, it is a problem for the Pro-life position. For DB to allow this exception he must contradict his own reasoning for disallowing abortion in general. Is it acceptable to abort a human life or not? If so, how can rape abortion be justified while maintaining a position against abortion overall? I think there is a bit of incoherence here, and I look forward to how my opponent navigates this.
First, Con is relying on the same ‘lack of contraception’ assumption mentioned above. As pointed out, this is a bad assumption.
Secondly, he equates consent to sex
with consent to pregnancy
. This is not the case. Consent is conditional and does not extend to every possible outcome of a given activity. For instance, we would reject the suggestion that someone has consented to death because it is a 'possible outcome of being in an automobile'. Unless explicitly stated, ‘possible’ is not what is consented to. It should also be noted that, on average, people *trying* to get pregnant require almost 80 attempts before they succeed. 
Anyone experienced with unprotected sex or who has attempted to get pregnant will know it is not necessarily easy to get pregnant. Beyond this, sex isn’t just something people do for pleasure and/or procreation. It might also be used to foster intimacy and connection, alleviate stress, and pain management - as well as an assortment of other subjective ends - none of which necessitate a duty or obligation to anything beyond those who have given consent to share their bodies with one another. In short, the button would not be an either/or like DB has suggested. I think it would be more realistic if the button said, “push for intimacy, connection, pleasure, pain management, or stress reduction, etc”., and there would be another button for pregnancy.
Equality of outcome?
DB would have us accept reproductive freedom is an aspiration for equality of outcome, but this is not the case. Reproductive freedom seeks equality of opportunity. Women should be able to participate in society just as fully as anyone else. They should have the opportunity to a good education, to control their economic future, and to decide the use of their biology – just like everyone else. Without the option of abortion, an unwanted pregnancy can stand in the way of opportunity. Without the option of legal abortion, an unwanted pregnancy can stand in the way of health and opportunity.
I would like to apologize but i forfeited because it was taking too long for my opponent to respond. I respect that the opponent is very busy, but the long wait times lowered my motivation. I apologize for formatting, its harder to do when using ones phone.
Thanks for voting!
As half the debate was forfeited, a conduct only vote is warranted without any analysis of arguments.
Technically a vote for con could still be justified, but I doubt it would pass the BS test, considering SkepticalOne's skill level.
Think again. Better; see the data. Both vas deferens and fallopian tubes can reconnect by completely natural, non-surgical means. Heard of stem cells? We all have them. They exist to regrow healthy tissue from damaged tissue. There are both specific [preprogrammed, if you will, to specific tissue type] and non-specific, generic stem cells. It's what they do. They do decline in numbers with age, but we start with millions of them. Also depends on the relative skill of the surgeon in the first place. Let's just say that all surgeons, like in any profession, are not top notch.
"Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. "
I think it's .15% over it's lifetime(http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_vasectomy.html). The majority of these failures are right after the vastectomy when sperm is still present in the penis. This can be solved by either waiting 3 months or jerking off 20x, whichever comes first. Given that guys like to jerk off, I imagine the latter would be preferred, but either works.
I think the vas deferens only reconnect if you get the surgery for it.
See the statistics. Vasectomies have a typical failure rate of 1%. That rises after five to ten years for the simple reason that the vas deferens can re-connect. As Dr. Micheal Crichton once said through Jurassic Park character, Ian Malcom, "Life finds a way."
Abstinence is 100% effective and I want to be abstinent until marriage to avoid STDs and pregnancy. I can't count on other people to be abstinent. I can however count on males to get vasectomies before they have sex if their girlfriends go on a sex strike until their BFs get a vastectomy. Once this is obtained and the sperm is out, then they can have unrestricted sex with no condoms and not get the girl pregnant because of the vastectomy.
In your #3 post, you speak of statistics, and specifically of the statistical success of using condoms vs. vasectomy. There is a process that is 100% effective if practiced with dedicated avoidance: abstinence. Mind over matter, my friend. Many clam it can't be done. When that's their decision; no, it can't. That does not speak to the impossibility of employing the tactic.
I think most women don't think of telling their pro life boyfriends to get vasectomies. I wouldn't call them dumb. If they are given the idea, I think almost every girl will require vasectomies before they agree to sex.
If they cant get an abortion as a backup maybe they'll thi k about it. And honestly if they havent thought about asking men to get a vasectomy...they dumb.
"Women can already decide for themselves not to have sex with men unless they have a vasectomy. "
Yeah, but giving women the idea to go on sex strikes until their partner gets a reversible vastectomy is an idea that I don't think the women thought of. If women get this idea, vasectomies would skyrocket and abortions would fall.
"Freedom comes with extra responsibility but its worth it"
If the girl gets pregnant, then this results in abortion. I wouldn't count on people getting vasectomies on their own; it's been tried for a long time, it hasn't yielded results that result in abortion decreases; contraception has been causing much of the abortion decline. A vastectomy is cheaper, simpler, and less painful then an unwanted pregnancy. If we're going to mandate unwanted pregnancies (which I think we should do, I'm pro life), then mandating vasectomies is consistent pro life ethic.
"What if they're indifferent about having kids."
If they want a kid and their husband wants a kid, they get the vastectomy reversed when they're ready for it.
We would only be enslaving women if we allowed rape. Instead women consent to having sex often while not using contraceptives.
It is their responsibility to say no to those who dont have vasectomies, not the governments job to.make that decision for them.
What if theyre indifferent about having kids. In general men have a higher drive, women hold most of the cards in deciding whether or not more guys get vasectomies
>> "mandatory vasectomies dont make sense"
If they don't make sense, would not defeat that they still make greater sense than enslaving women. Plus it does makes sense if opposed to abortion. It's an afternoon (or morning) of time, you walk out from the procedure, the discomfort is comparable to going through a single period... Plus with the vasectomy switch pretty far in development, undoing it when someone is ready for kids is easy and painless.
As an additional up side: You know it's what Darth Vader would do had they not been melted off. I totally bet Kylo Ren had it done to be more cybernetic like his idol.
Women can already decide for themselves not to have sex with men unless they have a vasectomy. Women and.men can decide the risk they want to take, you dont eliminate risk by getting rid of all choice. Freedom comes with extra responsibility but its worth it
The mother doesnt get the choice for an abortion because her action leads to the killing of another human whose creation was decided by her.
>> "Except this is the U.S. and mandatory vasectomies don't make sense."
Why not? It's easier to force vasectomies to prevent abortions than it is to force a female to be pregnant for 9 months. Vasectomies are reversible too, so when every male worldwide gets a vastectomy, they reverse the vastectomy when they and their wife are ready to have a kid. They reinstate the vastectomy as soon as their wife conceived. Unintended pregnancies and abortions become virtually non existent.
If we can force a female to not have abortions, even though there are ways which she can get around it, can we force all males to get vasectomies? It's easier to accomplish this than to eliminate abortions from banning them. To get males to get vasectomies, the government encourages females not wanting to conceive a kid to go on a sex strike until the male gets a vastectomy and passes the sperm free test. Since no female wants an unintended pregnancy, going on a sex strike has a history of resolving stuff, since most guys are close to addicted to sex.
Except this is the U.S. and mandatory vasectomies dont make sense. You cant force someone to get a vasectomy. What you can do is make abortion illegal, and make people responsible for the care of their child. Maybe that will lead to more voluntary vasectomies.
Also i hear the argument about what to do if the parents are inept and do drugs...my response, create services that the parents must pay for/ work at until they prove they can be good parents.
>> "mandatory vasectomies seem better than mandatory childbirth in an effort to eliminate abortions."
Condoms are 98% effective for one use, assuming you use it correctly, but if you have sex 100 times, which 26% of couples do in 2 years the odds of at least one condom failing are:
Vasectomies on the other hand, have a lifetime success rate of 99.8% when you wait 3 months or ejaculate 20x, whichever comes first. Sounds like mandatory vasectomies seem better than mandatory childbirth in an effort to eliminate abortions. I want to get one by the time I'm 19 on my own, and I hope other pro lifers do the same. Vasectomies are reversible, so you reverse the vastectomy for enough time to have the kid when your ready for a kid, and then you reinstate the vastectomy right after.
If they dont want to get pregnant then yes they should do what it takes to not get pregnant. Although if you use regular contraception condomns are 98% effective when used right and birth control 99% effective. Go win the lottery!
If your a girl, don't want to get pregnant, but like having sex, require that your boyfriend or husband gets a vastectomy first and ejaculate 25 times first to get the remaining sperm out of his penis before you have any sex with him to avoid pregnancy. Then abortions are gone and people can still lay each other whenever they feel like it in the long term.
Many lefties came up with the idea sarcastically, but I think it's honestly a good idea.