All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Debate on Abortion Rights.
We will be covering the reasons to have a complete ban on abortion or have it legal for all stages of pregnancy, nothing in the middle.
Pro = Pro Choice, Con = Pro life
- Under PRO’s short description: “We will be covering the reasons to have a complete ban on abortion or have it legal for all stages of pregnancy, nothing in the middle. Pro = Pro Choice, Con = Pro life” CON agrees to this limitation.
- THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION
PRO argues that abortion should be legal for all stages of pregnancy starting from conception. To illustrate how murderous such a proposal would be, CON will walk the voter through the stages of pregnancy.
- Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
- Within 16 days, the fetus has a detectable heartbeat. Within 8 weeks, a fetus can feel pain. According to a NY Times article interviewing Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center: “If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.”
- “At 9 weeks after conception, a fetus is able to bend its fingers around an object in its hand, and sucks its thumb. All essential organs have begun to form.
- At 11 weeks, a fetus is breathing amniotic fluid steadily and will do so until birth.
- At 12 weeks, a fetus can kick, turn over, make a fist, open its mouth and press its lips together.
- At 13 weeks, a fetus’s vocal cords and auditory sense are present.
- At 20 weeks, a fetus can be startled by a loud external noise.
- At 23 weeks, a fetus can demonstrate rapid eye movements (REM). (And has become viable to live outside the womb.)
- At six months, fine hair grows on the fetus’s head and eyebrows, and small eyelashes begin to appear.
- At seven months, a fetus’s hands can support his entire weight.
- At eight months, a fetus weighs more than four pounds.
- During the ninth month from conception, a fetus gains half a pound per week. Of the 45 total generations of cell replication that will occur by mature adulthood, 41 have already taken place.”
- A: to deprive of life : cause the death of”
Under condoms, preventative birth control, and abstinence, there is an actor but there is no victim. Thus, none of those forms of birth control kill.
CON argues that PRO’s argument is inconsistent. While CON agrees that preventative birth control does not kill, PRO ignores that abortion is uniquely murderous, as it rips the existence away from an already existing child.
CON does not dispute that unwanted children are more likely to grow up in adverse conditions. However, PRO unduly burdens the child with blame instead of the parent. PRO’s argument is that if you have bad parents, you do not deserve to live at all because you are more likely to be a criminal. However, this generalization obviously alienates all of the people that would have lived peacefully instead. CON argues that society should focus on promoting abstinence, preventive birth control, and improving conditions for children, and this problem will resolve itself.
Even still, CON argues that the effect of abortion on crime is quite negligible. The homicide rates freely fluctuate in Chicago, even increasing to near 1992 levels as of 2016.
While CON does not support his racial views, Steve Sailer elaborates on the inconsistencies of the study quite well:
“What about just black male youths? Since their mothers were having abortions at three times the white rate, their murder rate should have fallen spectacularly from 1984 to 1993. Instead it grew an apocalyptic 5.1 times.
Why, then, is this generation born in 1975-1979 now committing relatively fewer crimes as it ages? It makes no sense to give the credit to abortion. Instead, it's the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that largely drove crime first up, then down.”
WOMEN IN WORKPLACE:
PRO argues that a life is not worth living if it is done under the US poverty line. They proclaim the child’s case hopeless prematurely, snuffing out any chance for them to pursue the American dream. What’s worse, is that it is being done unnecessarily. The same economic benefits can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.
The economic and criminal benefits my opponent speaks of seem silly when compared to the price tag of 60 million people killed since Roe vs. Wade.
Furthermore, if all of those 60 million people were allowed to live, they would spend their money as consumers. That would have raked in an estimated “$200 trillion in their lifetimes. That’s money supporting businesses, driving industry, and creating jobs.”
ABORTIONS ARE SAFE (UNLESS DONE ILLEGALLY):
Regardless, all PRO’s 1st world vs. 3rd world comparisons show is the degree of liberalism present in each country. Liberal countries tend to value freedom, and although they make exceptions for national safety/morality cases (as they should), they tend to let the people influence policy through democracy. This has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong morally.
- Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes, 2003. Page 83
- (a) Life begins at conception
- (b) Because of (a), it must equate to murder
- (c) Because of (b), all moral reasons outweigh all undeniable consequences of a ban
The homicide rates freely fluctuate in Chicago, even increasing to near 1992 levels as of 2016.
Furthermore, if all of those 60 million people were allowed to live, they would spend their money as consumers. That would have raked in an estimated $200 trillion in their lifetimes
In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide at a toll of 42.3 million. Legalizing it for all would raise the death toll further. Compared to that of abortion subjects, there is no comparison.
While it is true that some would try to have one anyway, an estimated 90% of illegal abortions are done by licensed physicians
“the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later... many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place.”
RECALL CON’s 2 points under “A/2 OPENING”.
RECALL CON’s R1 ARGUMENT: “Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that human life begins at conception.”
- Chicken eggs are normally unfertilized when eaten.
- If it is a fertilized and developing egg, it is not equivalent to abortion because it is not human on human violence. Instead, it is simply a human eating a chicken fetus because it is tasty.
- We do not eat baby chickens because they are tiny and do not give much meat, not because they are “only just now alive” or something.
Regardless, contrary to PRO’s argument, many families choose to have funerals for their miscarried children.
The main reasons why many don’t vary. Funerals are costly and the majority of miscarriages happen near the first few Trimesters, so many families simply mourn and then move on.
A/2 “#1: Abortion lowered crime”
PRO admits that other factors are powerful enough to raise the homicide rate, essentially conceding CON’s R1 point that abortion is a negligible effect on crime when other factors are accounted for.
PRO claims that since CON’s graph focused on homicide the argument is void. CON counters that homicide rates are a good measure of how safe a city is, since petty marijuana possession and the like can inflate the crime rates of otherwise relatively safe cities.
“However, the source used is completely bogus and dedicated to ending christianity without regard to real facts.”
As the voter can see, PRO’s criticism does not address the content of the original quote, but the organization that cited it. The argument stands unrefuted.
“In fact, the source says “Stanford's John J. Donohue III” even though Donohue attended Yale and Harvard.”
A/2 #2 Women in the workplace
PRO says the only way to reliably increase women’s representation in the workplace is through abortion, and proceeds to cite statistics that argue that condoms and contraceptives are ineffective and that orphanages are backed up.
Unfortunately for PRO, they ignore CON’s previous argument for abstinence (i.e. the ultimate birth control) and they also cherry-picks their stats to misrepresent the truth.
The study they cited took polls of those who had abortions and asked them if they were using condoms or contraceptives at the time of pregnancy, and they asked them if they were using these consistently.
While 42% of the condom-users reported failure, inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms as well. Once you consider that only 1/250 condoms breaks (0.4%), the study simply shows that inconsistent use was a bigger contributor to unwanted pregnancy than breaks.
The results are similar with contraceptives, which are 91%+ effective, as 3/4ths of those taking them reported inconsistent use.
Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. And even then, orphanages and abstinence are still options.
A/2 #3 Economy
PRO states that India is proof population does not help the economy.
CON counters that India is the fastest growing economy in the world because of their population. Economists agree:
“Jorgenson credited the relative youth of the Indian population for recent gains. “India’s more favorable demography pushes up the hours worked and productivity components,” he said. “Those factors have led to India overtaking China” in the race to the world’s fastest growing economy.”
PRO states that the world has too many people and not enough jobs.
“demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”
So the truth is, in the long run we could use more people, not less.
“To sacrifice all of this simply for moral reasons?”
A/2 “Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions”
“The source presented by CON is applying for only the US”
This is a quote from the disputed source:
Sounds like it is not exclusively the US.
“In fact, if you look at stats from worldwide, 45% of worldwide abortions are done unsafely due to being illegal in third-world countries”
Even if they were, RECALL CON’s R1 argument:
“CON argues that this objection does not resolve any moral objections to abortion. In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide at a toll of 42.3 million. Legalizing it for all would raise the death toll further. Compared to that of abortion subjects, there is no comparison.”
A/2 “UN Report”
PRO ignores CON’s response from R1 and pretends their argument is unrefuted:
“all PRO’s 1st world vs. 3rd world comparisons show is the degree of liberalism present in each country. Liberal countries tend to value freedom, and although they make exceptions for national safety/morality cases (as they should), they tend to let the people influence policy through democracy. This has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong morally.”
“CON even agrees;
“abortions conducted past 14 weeks are almost all due to fetal issues/maternal life….... In these cases, which count for 7% of abortions in America
It is safe to conclude that PRO is wrong that “almost all” or even a good portion of post 14-week abortions are due to either fetal issues or maternal life.
PRO has not been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that life does not begin at conception. Regardless, PRO still neglects to respond to the simple objection that it would begin at some point along the journey to birth.
To quote last round’s conclusion:
“PRO openly advocates for aborting all fetuses regardless of development, and has thus openly endorsed the killing of millions of people for the sake of a few questionable benefits. Vote CON.”