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.