Instigator / Pro
2
1502
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Legalized Abortion

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1687
rating
28
debates
83.93%
won
Description
~ 197 / 5,000

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

Round 1
Pro
Opening Statement
Abortions do not kill. Logically and conceptually, abortions have one effect: to stop the fetus from being born. Logically and conceptually, if we are referring to whether or not a child will exist, then abortions have the exact same effect as condoms, birth control, and abstinence. My parents wearing a condom versus my parents aborting me produces the same result: I don’t exist. However, the difference is that one is latex and the other is extraction. Thus, one can not use the claim that abortion denied someone from existing as it is flawed and illogical. The only grounds to argue on is claiming that extraction is the same thing as killing a born child, in which there is little to no footing. 

The pro-life argument at its core depends on only this one loose string. Whether or not life begins at birth is entirely apples and oranges; it can be argued both ways. There is plenty of evidence on why life begins on birth, and pro-lifers may be presenting evidence on why it doesn’t. However, is their only valid argument. 

On the other hand, while pro-life depends on feelings, pro-choice largely centers around facts. A complete abortion ban has devastating consequences. What America has received from legalizing it includes (all of which will be addressed with supporting evidence later on):
-Decreased Crime+Murder Rates 
-Decrease in domestic violence and abusive families
-Parents being able to choose to have children when they are prepared for it
-Decrease in ruined lives due to unintentional pregnancies
-Saves the cost of pregnancy and raising a child
-Helps people of lower economic statuses
-More women in the work force
-Reduces taxpayer costs
-Improved economy
-Helps with other issues such as systemic racism

However, there is only one con for legal abortions:
-Some people are offended by it (for moral/religious reasons pertaining to their feelings)

Undoubtedly, abortion has only helped society. To nullify all of that simply because one’s morals do not match another is unreasonable and absurd. The argument that abortion is murder is completely opinion-based and surrounds the concept of morals; however, pro-life tries to spin it off as facts and wants society to take the brunt of the blow. A ban would be catastrophic for many and the repercussions can not be ignored. 

The Effect of Abortion on Crime
In 1966, a study in Sweden found that children born to women who were denied an abortion "turned out to have been registered more often with psychiatric services, engaged in more antisocial and criminal behavior, and have been more dependent on public assistance” (1972 Rockefeller Commission). The study looked at almost 200 children in a hospital whose parents could not get an abortion and compared each one to the child born directly after. The result found that unwanted children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, for example, with divorced parents or in a foster home. Growing up in environments where they are not loved nor cared about or born to parents who are not competent enough to raise them had increased the chances for them to be engaged in crime.


In 2001, John Donohue from Yale and Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago published a paper on “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime”. The study found that legalized abortion accounted for 45% of the sharp crime drop that happened in 1992. The methods of the study included noticing crime drops in all the states that had legalized abortions earlier before the other ones. Thus, researchers began isolating variables to weed out the true effect of legal abortions.

This research received heavy praise by scholars, however, there were a small number of critics too. However, the critics do agree that abortions accounted for a drop in crime, just that the percent abortion accounted for should be at around 30% rather than 45%. 

Sources: 
https://bit.ly/2Plm2xp (Harvard Professor Robert J. Barro on the 2001 study)

https://bit.ly/39TUM2t (Referenced Sources from the article: 2001 Donohue Levitt Study and the Sweden Study cited by the Rockefeller Commission) 

Women in the workforce
Labor researcher David E. Kalist found that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies significantly increased the labor force participation of women, especially minority groups such as black females. By legalizing abortions, women could pursue their career and education rather than be forced to raise a child she is neither prepared for nor wants to have. Many other studies echo the results, including one done by the Center on the Economics of Reproductive health, which was peer-reviewed and analyzed by PhD researchers. These facts are conclusive and indisputable. 

Source:
https://bit.ly/30s4Axu (Study done by David E. Kalist)
https://bit.ly/3fs60w8 (Study done by Bernstein and Jones)

Abortion’s effect on the Economy and Lower Class
75% of abortion patients were below the poverty line, along with 20% of abortions being done specifically because a pregnancy would be financially devastating for them. Access to abortions had significantly helped reduce poverty and improved the life of those in the lower economic class. Often times, the reduced crime rate means less economic toll due to crime and less incarcerated criminals. Also, federal spending on welfare is reduced, along with less competition for jobs and less unemployed. 

Source: https://bit.ly/2D9Trsv (Conservative website, data used was taken from the Guttmacher Institute)
https://bit.ly/30t1ucy (Guttmacher Institute)

Effects of a ban on abortion
Around 18% of US pregnancies end in abortion. This figure, however, is less than the number of miscarriages, which is estimated to be more than 20%. In fact, 24% of women will have an abortion in their lifetime. Abortions are actually one of the safest procedures in medicine when done correctly, as it is 14 times safer than childbirth. However, this is when it is done correctly. When there is a ban on abortion, there will be illegal abortions done, which is oftentimes done using unsafe methods that result in severe damage and death. In fact, out of the 56 million abortions performed worldwide each year, 45% is done unsafely due to abortion bans in other countries. Modern abortions involve quick and painless extraction methods through surgery or medication, while illegal abortions done in countries with a ban oftentimes results in immense pain, trauma on the fetus, and from a religious perspective, is magnitudes times worse than a safe abortion. Methods include insertion of needles, clothes hangers, or trauma applied to the womb. Supporting an immediate ban means supporting widespread illegal abortions.

In fact, worldwide, an immediate complete ban on abortion is simply out of the question. Here is a chart with the graph of the level of strictness of an abortion ban in each country: https://ibb.co/5cGSr3t

This UN report shows that only one country in the world has a complete ban on abortion, and that is Nicaragua. As 7% of abortions are done due to fetal defects and maternal life, a complete ban is simply absurd. Nicaragua is currently run under a dictatorship, with doctors living in fear of arrest if they perform abortions. In fact, Nicaragua has an immensely high rate of maternal death during pregnancy and a high death rate due to gynecological emergencies, which otherwise could have been prevented and treated.  Thus, no other country in the world has any sort of complete abortion ban; there will always be exceptions. 

Chart of First/Second/Third World countries: https://bit.ly/3fpr0DX

Compare the chart above of first, second, and third world countries with the chart of areas where abortion is legal. A general imperfect trend can be made: countries with legal abortions are more often first or second world countries, while those with bans are most often third world. These third world countries with bans often times have significant illegal abortions performed and heavy poverty and crime rates. Though many other factors account for the countries being third world, a ban on abortion can be considered as a one, illustrating the effects a ban could have. 


Sources: https://bit.ly/33Doxnd (Guttmacher Institute)
https://bit.ly/2PkPrHU (Wikipedia - Go down to references section to see sources used)
https://bit.ly/3kaZRrI  (For the graph of first/second/third world countries)


Closing Remarks
With the evidence presented above, it is conclusive and indisputable that abortion has only a positive impact on society. Many of the arguments used by pro-life to point out the negative impacts of abortions are without evidence and baseless. For example, a theory that abortions effect mental health has been disproven many times.
Many pro-lifers believe that they are the administers of justice; that those who have sex should expect the risks of being pregnant and therefore must be punished with raising the child. However, as we have proven, abortions come from lower economic classes and bans would have undeniable consequences. Both sides agree that the well-being of society is a priority, and a ban would only diminish it. Does society deserve to face the blows for the sake of a few offended pro-lifers?

The pro-ban on abortion can be phrased down to this: abortion is against their own morals and therefore others should be forced under a ban too. Typically, if one believes a situation is immoral, they are entitled to not participate themselves, however, to force others out should not be something they can control. 

The entire pro-life argument can be summarized as life begins at conception, thus it is murder. However, their only footing is quite loose: scientists do not know when life begins and cannot prove it, and to say otherwise is completely false in the scientific community. Their only argument is based on opinion, while mine is based on facts.



Con
Thanks, vector and welcome to the site!

OBSERVATIONS:

  • 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. 
CONSTRUCTIVE:

  1. THE FETUS IS HUMAN LIFE STARTING FROM CONCEPTION
CON argues that human life begins at conception and continues until death.
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.
As Princeton cites:
"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.”
Brian Clowes, PhD:

  • “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.”
PRO is arguing that under all of these stages of pregnancy, abortion should be available. By conception, it is already debatably murder, but by the 9th month, it is definitely so. 

Considering that already 60 million people have been killed since Roe vs. Wade, PRO’s advocated expansion to include late-term abortions is just another nail in the coffin for the morality of abortion. 

REFUTATIONS:

“ABORTIONS DO NOT KILL”

PRO attempts to frame the process of abortion as a process of preventive birth control, all in an attempt to claim that abortion technically does not kill. 

Merriam-Webster 

“Kill”

  1. A: to deprive of life : cause the death of”
In order to kill, there must be an actor and a victim.

The victim must be alive to start.
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. 

Planned Parenthood states that “suction abortion (also called vacuum aspiration) is the most common type of in-clinic abortion.” Followed by the claim it is a “gentle” process.

To put the reality mildly, the suction tears the body of the fetus apart and suctions the pieces through the tube(1). There is both an actor and a victim, and the victim is torn apart. That is killing, and CON argues this should fall under the definition of murder.

LIFE AT CONCEPTION

CON argues that life beginning at birth is a moot point because it is subjective and fickle.

PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts. 

CRIME & CONDITIONS:

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:
 
The same results can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.
 
ECONOMIC BENEFIT:

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):

Advertising the ability to efficiently kill children may not be the best way to advocate for abortion in terms of ethics. 

As for illegal abortions, 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. 

Additionally, banning abortion would deter women from having one because most women are law-abiding. It would also pressure more use of abstinence, preventative birth control and orphanages to deter the need for abortion.

While it is true that some would try to have one anyway, an estimated 90% of illegal abortions are done by licensed physicians. 

NICARAGUA AND THE UN REPORT:

PRO talks of the absurdity of a total abortion ban. Compare this to the absurdity of zero abortion restrictions like PRO advocates for. A baby 1 day before birth could be legally aborted.

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. 


CONCLUSION:

Life begins at conception, DNA proves it. Even if it didn’t, it would begin at some point along the journey to birth. 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. 

  1. Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes, 2003. Page 83

Round 2
Pro
OPENING 

CON’s entire argument depends on one thing: abortion is classified as murder. However, to deem it as such is subject to one’s opinion and feelings. In order for CON to prove that abortion should be banned, they must prove:
  1. (a) Life begins at conception
  2. (b) Because of (a), it must equate to murder
  3. (c) Because of (b), all moral reasons outweigh all undeniable consequences of a ban
The CON’s argument begins to fall apart at the first step. CON even admits that only a majority of scientists believe that life begins before birth. To classify abortion as murder, all three points must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt [burden by law], and each point cannot be proven unless the previous point meets the burden. This means that any doubt or question raised that counters one of the three points will render CON as a failure in meeting the burden. I will give evidence that counters all three. 


REFUTATIONS

1. Life Starts at Birth
In order to show that abortion is murder, CON must show undoubtedly that life begins before birth. If you have one shred of doubt, CON’s entire case falls apart. 

Much of CON's argument is opinion and can be argued in reverse:

In Canada, a council of over 250 doctors presented evidence to Canada’s parliament endorsing “life begins at birth”. A common belief is that life begins when one gains consciousness. How can one be considered alive when one does not even know that they are? If I was aborted, I would have never known that I existed in the first place. Even alive right now, I remember nothing from the womb and it is conclusive no one else does either. 

2. Abortion is NOT murder
Though it is clear that life can not be conclusively be determined to start before birth, CON must also prove that abortion is classified as murder beyond a reasonable doubt as that is the burden of proof in American law. 

Baby Definition:
“A very young child, especially one newly or recently born”

Thus a fetus must be in a class of its own. As it is not even aware of its own existence, a fetus can not be considered equal to an alive human. Any counterargument is completely opinion-based even if prong #1 is proved (which it isn't). It is often believed being a human involves knowing that one exists in the first place. Thus, a fetus can not be considered as one. 

Definition of murder:

“The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”

Thus to establish murder, one must establish a fetus as a human, which can not be conclusively determined and subject to opinion and therefore, impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 

To further my case, take the chicken. It is not considered “murdering a chicken” if one eats the egg. In contrast, would everyone gladly slaughter a newly-hatched baby chicken? Chicken eggs are eaten on a daily bases, often multiple times by a single person, however, baby chickens are rarely eaten at all. Also, 30-50% of pregnancies end up in a miscarriage. Are there funerals for miscarriage fetuses yet? No, because they were never human in the first place. If any portion of this logic is agreed upon, one cannot classify abortions as murder.

3. Consequences of Abortion cannot be ignored
At this point, since it is impossible to classify abortion as murder, CON has no case at all as most of his refutations involve terms similar to “murder”. To further this, I will reiterate the consequences in response to CON’s refutation. 

#1: Abortion lowered crime
As established previously, the Donohue-Levitt study concluded that 45% of the drop in crime is attributed to legal abortion. This study has only been refuted in a debate of others arguing the percent should be closer to 30%. Also, the study has been updated and relooked 18 years later and all conclusions still hold true. 

The homicide rates freely fluctuate in Chicago, even increasing to near 1992 levels as of 2016.
The current spike is attributed to different reasons. The study conducted by Donohue-Levitt isolated variables to determine drop for what happened in 1992, which was different than today. On the other hand, this is not for crime but for homicides ONLY. 

CON presented a source that tries to dispute the Donohue-Levitt argument. However, the source used is completely bogus and dedicated to ending christianity without regard to real facts. In fact, the source says “Stanford's John J. Donohue III” even though Donohue attended Yale and Harvard. Also, the source agrees: Donohue-Levitt did not go into the study with bias as they do not endorse abortion. Thus, the figures produced are agreeably correct. 

#2 Women in the workplace
Abortion has increased women’s representation in the workplace. To this CON says:

“The same results can be achieved with abstinence, preventative birth control and with orphanages.”

42% of those using condoms reported failures and breaks. 50% of women using abortion had used some form of contraception. In the United States, orphanages are for dead parents. In similar, adoption centers should not be abused by tripling the number of children in an already overflowing system. Children wait 2-7 years to get adopted, and tripling the wait time would make most children adults before they are adopted. Thus birth control and orphanages cannot be relied upon.


#3 Economy
I have established that abortion has only harmed those in poverty and brought down the economy. In response, CON claimed:

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

A larger population does not equate to a stronger economy, such as India, a third-world country with a heavily impoverished population. In fact, that number, $200 trillion, had to come from somewhere that exists in the economy already. It had to be generated from a job or more likely considering demographics, from a crime. The job market is already limited on not being enough jobs and too many available workers. In countries with larger populations, the effects of this is evident: competition becomes suffocating, wages are lower for everyone, and the condition of life deteriorates. To sacrifice all of this simply for moral reasons? Thus that estimate only shows the harm on the economy, not benefit. 

#4 Illegal Abortions = Unsafe Abortions
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.
The source provided classifies each abortion as a death, which cannot be used as fetuses are not considered to be humans and therefore not a death. CON has tried to spin this as abortions leading deaths.

While it is true that some would try to have one anyway, an estimated 90% of illegal abortions are done by licensed physicians
The source presented by CON is applying for only the US, where most forms of abortions are legal already and thus people already have safe access to conduct them. There are not very many unsafe abortions in the US in the first place as it is legal. The fact that there are unsafe abortions already furthers the idea of many unsafe abortions performed once it becomes illegal. 

In fact, if you look at stats from worldwide, 45% of worldwide abortions are done unsafely due to being illegal in third-world countries which need legal abortions the most as access to birth control and strong educations is infrequent. Bans would not significantly decrease total abortions; it will only increase unsafe abortions and poverty all for the name of morality.

#5 UN Report
Finally, the most important fact of the case: a complete ban on abortion is absurd. CON has provided no rebuttal to the UN report on how only Nicaragua, an impoverished country with a high preventable maternal death rate during pregnancy and preventable gynecological deaths, is the ONLY country with a complete ban. There were also no objections to the fact that countries with abortion restrictions were often third-world and impoverished, with abortion being a factor to a worse standard of life. 

Remember: CON proposes a complete ban without exceptions. CON even agrees; a complete ban is absurd and unreasonable due to preventable painful maternal death and that abortion can’t even be considered murder. 

The only counterargument presented by CON was that I proposed abortion for all stages. However, abortions conducted past 14 weeks are almost all due to fetal issues/maternal life. At this point, the parents want to have a child, however, the risks of pregnancy makes it a death sentence for an alive baby or an alive mother. Thus, indirectly, a complete ban on abortion can be attributed as preventable manslaughter, as for fetal cases, pregnancy is forced and a born baby is forced to die, while for maternal life, the mother is forced to die. In these cases, which count for 7% of abortions in America, a ban would be considered manslaughter, and most of these abortions happen during the later stages of pregnancy, even right before birth in only extreme cases involving certain loss of life. 


Closing
As established, abortion is impossible to argue as murder, and thus, CON has no ground to argue upon. 

Also established, a ban would have devastating consequences all for the sake of one’s moral reasons that stem from feelings and opinions. 

Thus, if one wants to reduce abortions, the only choice to go is to increase access to birth control, improve education, encourage abstinence, and use other methods to prevent pregnancy. This has been working, as abortions have only been decreasing each year due to these reasons. Without it, a ban would not work; illegal abortions would still be rampant.

A complete ban thus will never work and a slow decrease in pregnancies is the only way to decrease abortions.

Con
A/2 OPENING:

PRO opens by claiming that CON must prove definitively that life begins at conception or their entire case fails. Their argument is that if there even is a shred of doubt, a single scientist disputing the results, that CON can not win. 

CON has two replies:

1. This is an abusive and undue BoP. As instigator, PRO actually carries BoP to prove their position. 
“When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”

PRO has made the claim that we can not reasonably assume life begins at conception. However, they have given no evidence for that claim other than “we do not know for 100% certain.” To consider a claim true, we do not have to prove it with 100% certainty. We must prove it true beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is the legal standard that PRO distorts beyond recognition.

CON has presented evidence to the contrary of PRO’s unsubstantiated argument in R1, so the voter may conclude that PRO has not fulfilled their BoP that life does not begin at conception. 

2. PRO ignores the fact they have openly endorsed abortion for all stages of pregnancy.

RECALL CON’s summary in R1: “Life begins at conception, DNA proves it. Even if it didn’t, it would begin at some point along the journey to birth.”

A/2 “1. Life Starts at Birth”

PRO says that 250 Canadian doctors believe that life begins at birth. CON hopes it is self-evident to voters that this view has no basis in evidence, nor does such a small share of opinions represent the most common view of doctors.

PRO then starts to argue that consciousness is the main marker for the start of human life. 

Unfortunately for PRO, science has demonstrated that the baby is capable of consciousness while still in the womb, it is only asleep due to its environment.  
“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 that PRO endorses abortion during any stage of pregnancy. 

Additionally, if consciousness is the only marker of life, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or even asleep are “not alive” under PRO’s logic.

Again, the most logical and scientifically supported marker for the beginning of life is conception. 

A/2 “Abortion is NOT murder”
  
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? 
 
Although CON is admittedly surprised that PRO has turned to chickens as subject matter,
2 responses:
  1. Chicken eggs are normally unfertilized when eaten. 
  2. 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. 
  3. 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. 
Miscarriages

PRO continues to cite the 40% miscarriage stat, when Harvard counters that miscarriages only happen at “15% to 20%” rate.
 
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.” 

PRO’s criticism falls flat when CON’s citation is read under the "CRIME & CONDITIONS" subpoint of CON's R1.
 
 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.”

https://law.stanford.edu/directory/john-j-donohue-iii/
 
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. 
 
Is overpopulation possible? Yes. Are we near the global threshold? Not even close. According to Forbes
“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?”

Yes, absolutely. Even if PRO were right and banning abortion would hurt the economy, the economy is not worth 42 million people a year. 
 
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:

“the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians”

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”
 
This stat simply refers to the number of illegal abortions done. As the above stat proves, this does not necessarily prove that these illegal abortions are “unsafe.”
 
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;

CON never agreed to such a thing.
 
“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
 
PRO’s source does not contain evidence that abortions past 14 weeks are “almost all” due to fetal issues/maternal life. They also misquote their own source, as it specifically states that fetal issues and maternal life are only 1% and 0.27% of all cases respectively. 
 
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.

CONCLUSION: 
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.”