Instigator / Pro
6
1538
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

Is abortion ethical?

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
2
1519
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 1,633 / 5,000

Description:

Topic: Is abortion ethical

Instigator's Position: PRO
Instigators claim: Abortion is ethical

Contender's Position: CON
Instigators claim: Abortion is not ethical/Unconvinced of PRO's claim, "Abortion is ethical"

Abortion is a contentious topic throughout the US a 44% (acceptable) and 47% (unacceptable) split tells a very straight forward story [1]. That, at least Americans, are heavily divided on this issue. Due to this, I want to have a debate regarding the topic.

This debate is meant to expand both side's knowledge pool of abortion, provide an interaction between the sides so as to negate echo chambers, and of course, demonstrate your position. As such I will provide key definitions below as well as the basic structure and stipulations of the debate.

Key Terms [2]:

Abortion - "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"

Ethical - "involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval" specifically referring to approval in this case

So to clarify the topic using the current definitions, "The act of terminating a pregnancy should be expressed with moral approval"

Debate Regulations:

- No new cases in the last two rounds

- If you do not address a point, you have dropped said point

- Concession of specific rounds is allowed, but any more than one will count as a forfeit of the debate

- Forfeit will result in loss of the debate

Thank you, I look forward to the debate!

Sources:

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/244625/morality-abortion-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Since the affirmative has failed to affirm the resolution and failed to meet their burden of proof, default to Con until they have a case.
Round 2
Pro
Claim: Abortion is ethical

Opening Statement

I would like to firstly thank my opponent, Ancap460, for accepting the debate. I would also like to apologize for my lack of argumentation in round 1. I look forward to a constructive debate and general conversation. Now for the usual housekeeping: As I have established in the resolution, I hold the position that Aboriton is ethical. This puts, at the very least, the initial BoP on myself. As I am not clear on the opponent’s position as of yet, their BoP is currently undefined. 

Now onto the actual structure of my argument: I will start by defining all terms used here, in order to clarify the resolution itself. Next I will be providing an argument towards a specific standard of morality as, this will be using two contentions:

  1. Well-Being
  2. Well-being to objectivity
After my first argument on the case of morality I will use it as an axiom in order to make an argument that Abortion is against previously stated standard, again, in a three pronged argument, or using two contetions:

   1. The Parasitic Relationship 
   2. Human Rights of Woman

Finally I will include a summation of both of my arguments and a conclusion to the round in general, the sources will be provided further below that. Onto my first section - Definitions.


Definitions [1]

For clarity's sake: Yes, I have provided two definitions within the resolution, but those are more like umbrella terms. This definition section will further clarify words within the definitions and other words that may help clarify my position.

  • Abortion - "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"
  • Ethical - "involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval" specifically referring to approval in this case
  • Moral - “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
(To be clear: Moral and Ethical are stated synonyms and I will use them as such for this particular argument)
 
  • Approve - “To give formal or official sanction” 
  • Disapprove - “to refuse approval”
  • Embryo - “the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception” 
  • Fetus - “ the unborn young from the eighth week of pregnancy to birth; an organism in the stage of development that follows the embryonic stage.” 
  • Human Well-being - The physical and mental condition/condition of human beings
To sum up this section I would like to mention that the definitions listed are all the most topical I could find. If the CON has any questions, problems, or rebuttals against them, please do mention it in your next round. 


Human well-being as the moral standard (Case 1)

In short - I will be using this case to establish an argument for a specific moral standard. The specific standard I will be arguing for is human well-being. To summarize my contentions:

  1. Well-being 
  2. The objectivity of Well-being

To summarize my case I will present:

  • Objective moral standards are impossible
  • Specifying the topic as human moral standards
  • Applying Well-being to morality
  • Applying objectivity to Well-being


Well-Being 

The first thing I will be establishing for this case, is how morality can not be objective. I will be using the syllogism below to justify this claim (Here is my argument regarding the claim for those curious)

  1.  Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
  2.  Values and principals are made by minds
  3. Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind, and the morality not objective
 
As such any standard used will have to be a subjective one, but we can at least get close to an objective standard of morality.
Specifically we are conversing about the morality of human-beings and the regards to their body and lives, I would say it is not very contentious to argue that the morality that would be topical is relating to humans. From there I have to justify why I am using, well-being in particular. 
 
  • Moral(s) is defined as: “ “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL” 
 
Using that definition and my previous point, we are talking about the principles of human actions. How would we measure behavior specifically? Well it is how those actions affect other people, the environment, animals, etc.. 

Seeing as I have already given the reason for the well-being to be of humankind, we’ll use the behavior which affects other humans. To continue, well-being is the state of a person’s mental and physical health, in other words it is the scale used to measure how people are affected by things.  
The well-being of a human, therefore would be one of the best standards applicable to the behavior of other humans and whether said behavior is right or wrong. The well-being is kind of like the health status of that person, and it’s state affects every part of your life. 
 

Relativity of Objectivity to Well-being

 
My primary reasoning for this line of argument is the fact that well-being is rooted in objective consequence. 
 
Some examples may include: 
 
 
Therefore “well-being” is just a measurement of how people have been harmed or helped by actions, or behaviors. See how that train pulls back around? If you still aren’t convinced I have one other line of reasoning for you to pay attention to, as well as some more meat for the previous one. 
 
As it is more objective, it more objectively measures how it would apply to a population, where something that negatively impacts your wellbeing is immoral, and where positively impacts your wellbeing is moral, i.e,
 

We could use human well-being to measure the morality of the following statements: 
 
  • Stealing from a store
  • Giving to the poor
  • Abortion
 
What I’m saying is that well-being, human well-being especially, is a standard we already apply to everyday life. For example: Whenever we punish a child for hitting his brother, we are punishing them because they have harmed, i.e affected the well-being of their brother negatively, their brother. 
 

Essentially
 
  • well-being is as inclusive as a standard you can get, considering that it dictates everybody.
  •  It is the most applicable considering that it is what we apply to measure our health, mentally and physically.  
 
 
Abortion is Ethical (Case 2)
 

The position I attempt to prove in this case is: Abortion is Ethical, using three contentions, which I will summarize below:
 
  • The Parasitic Relationship 
  • Human Rights of Woman
 
To summarize my position: 
 
  • Defining a parasitic relationship and comparing it to the fetus and motherly connection
  • Presenting the harm that Fetus’s caused to mothers
  • Presenting the fact that Woman have the right to bodily autonomy
  • Comparing the fetus to the woman
 
Onto my first contention then:

 
The Parasitic/Deathly Relationship
 
 
A parasitic relationship is defined thusly: 
 
 
Now let’s compare that to the relationship between a mother and the fetus, and see if the fetus does indeed fit this description. 
 
 
According to the National Institutes of Health say that people usually intake adequate iron in their diets, and the mean for women over 19 is 12.6 - 13.5mg a day, whereas pregnant women require 27mg daily. This is a 2.07 times increase in necessary iron intake, or a 48.5% increase. 
 
Over 700 women a year die from complications with pregnancy and the fetus in the US, the mortality rate being 23.8 per 100,000 in 2014. 
 

 
  • Iron-deficiency Anemia 
  • Severe, persistent vomiting 
  • High Blood pressure
  • Gestational Diabetes
  • Infections
 
Finally, by definition, Fetus are inside of the mother. 
 
From that list, we can indeed conclude that Fetuses and their mother do technically, at the very least, resemble a parasitic relationship, but more likely are one. 
 

The argument from there would be as follows:

P1: The parasitic relationships are negative towards one’s well-being
P2: The relationship between the mother and fetus is parasitic
CON: Therefore, the fetus is causing considerable harm to the mother
 
Going off of that, we would way that to improve the well-being of the mother would be to abort the baby, and therefore justify abortion as moral or ethical. To further justify this I will go onto my second contention for this case (fourth if we are counting total contentions)
 

Humans Rights of Women
 
To start this contention off, I should explain which rights I’m using - The Human Rights section as defined by the United Nations 
 
“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.”
 
These rights were universally applied whenever it was proclaimed on December 10th, 1948 and is the standard for all nations today.
 
In the HMR 2017 Resolution there was an adopted text under the general title of 38/18 Elimination of discrimination against woman and girls, under document E is this statement:

“Reaffirming that the human rights of women include a woman’s right to have control over and to decide freely and responsibly on matters related to her sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, and that equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the dignity, integrity and autonomy of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences,” 
 
This clearly establishes the fact that women have an inherent human right to their matters in reproduction. 
 
Now, do fetuses get the right to a human life? First of all, there is no mention of fetuses under the resolution itself, but to provide further evidence. 
 
Presently there is a large divide scientifically between the evidence, but this entire debate is a nonsequitur. As the parasitic relationship suggests, the fetus is essentially a biological part of the woman’s body. 
 
As the woman has her right to reproductive matters, and human rights have benefitted the world massively
 
From there we could argue the impact of human rights to human well-being. We can easily observe the ranks of happiness and therefore well-being increasing over the last three years alone

  1. Not to mention that the prohibitions of human exploitation inherently means that well-being increases: Ex: Slavery is against the human rights, therefore more slavery will be stopped, etc, etc… 
 

Conclusions
 
I have presented two cases here:
 
  1. The case for the moral standard being human well-being
  2. The case for abortion being ethical
 
To do this I provided two contentions within both cases that explain my reasoning and provide a multitude of sources to justify my positions. 
 
Morality
  • Well-being
  • Well-being to Objectivity
Abortion
  • The Parasitic Relationship
  • Human rights of Women
 
I have thus fulfilled my Burden of Proof, that Abortion is Ethical. As such the BoP now transfers to my opponent. I look forward to constructives and rebuttals. I give the floor to Con. 
 
Sources
 
Con
I'm going to challenge my opponent's ethical framework, establish my own points, and then answer my opponents.

Framework
1. I believe that Pro violates his own ethical framework. The problem is that my opponent's ethical framework prioritizes well-being for it's objectivity and general goodness, but it doesn't give you a weigh to value the well being of different individuals. What does this mean? This means that we inherently have to value any question on how much harm is being done to an individual. We can't evaluate ethics on any other basis besides well-being, so if you have to harm someone's, you choose the one who would be least harmed. This would inherently be the fetus's, as it's termination would result in an entire life being stripped from it while a an individual having an average pregnancy would only have nine months and a painful pregnancy. Death, or at least the loss of a potential life, is much worse to the well-being of any individual than 9 months and a painful couple of days at most. To preempt the issue of risk of pregnant individual's life, I will answer that in my points.

2. As a counter ethical framework, I would argue that we should focus on the chance of life itself. Multitude of reasons.
A. You can only evaluate well-being on the basis that there is a living being to give insight into their well-being. What this means is that the value on the chance of life itself is more important. The only way for my opponent to access his arguments about ethical objectivity is if they first pass through my ethical standard. This is a question of what initially comes first. Force my opponent to prove that life isn't a critical starting point to reach before well-being for him to win that his ethical standard is better.
B. Life is more objective than well-being because what counts as well-being isn't inherently on the same page. Can you have well-being if you don't have an economically stable position? Leftist economics would say no while right wing economics would say yes. My point isn't to get into the specifics of the economic question, but to show that well-being is a lot more nuanced than my opponents example of scraping knees and meditating. I would even argue that his example of exercising isn't 100% objective because there are body acceptance movements that say exercising is a form of control of how the human body should look and supermodels and the physically fit inherently harm their mental well-being. With so much subjective nuance, we have to defer to something with more objectivity, which is life. Life is the only thing that we are all guaranteed to experience as human beings, so we must prioritize that as an objective thing we should all have a shot at. Now, the reasons I use the term chance at life is because, while we should focus on well-being as a secondary objective, we can only measure that if we give someone a shot at life.
C. Pro violates this ethical standard as well because they inherently don't prioritize life. By saying that an individual can lose access to life (this isn't about murdering a fetus, but about it losing the chance at living and establishing well being), Pro violates this ethical standard. 

3. Pro either needs to prove they meet mine or defend why there's is better and why they meet theirs. Don't let them shift into a completely new ethical framework, skews all of neg's ability to be able to debate.

My Arguments
1. I'm going to start with a counter proposal. The counter proposal is going to be "Abortion is unethical in all cases except where the pregnant individual is at risk of permanent harm." I'm going to explicitly say why the counter proposal is better for both ethical frameworks, as well as what it solves of Pro's case.
A. The counter proposal is better within Pro's ethical framework because it inherently values the well-being of the fetus and its ability to even derive well-being in the future. Focusing solely on the pregnant person's well-being creates a situation where we simply aren't evaluating well-being in the totality of the situation. To assume that the well-being associated with an entire life is outweighed by nine months (since the aff doesn't get to weigh harm to the pregnant person's permanent damage since we call those abortions ethical) and the pain of the pregnancy completely demeans that life. Also, it doesn't force a pregnant person to take damage to their well-being equal to what the fetus would deal with, which is permanent damage. This means that we always prioritize the situation that creates the most well-being for all, not simply the pregnant individual.
B. The counter proposal is better within Con's ethical framework because it prioritizes the creation of a chance at life for the fetus, and the only time that this is negated is when there is a risk of death to the pregnant individual. What this means is that we prioritize creating the most amount of lives, and when there would be a tradeoff, we give the choice to the pregnant individual since they are the only what that can advocate for a decision. 
C. It solves the entire first point of the Pro case. Very simply, if a fetus does enough harm to lead to permanent damage, then the abortion becomes ethical, meaning they don't get to weigh it. If it doesn't do enough harm to be permanent, then it violates both ethical frameworks to abort it. Either the counter proposal solves or the aff fails to be ethical by their own standard. What this means is that the only difference between the Pro Case and the counter proposal is now the question of their question of "Human Rights of Woman" (it's important to understand this is a quote of the Pro case and in no way an advocated statement of the Con's position, which will be clear why in my next point) versus the other points I will establish.

2. My opponent inherently utilizes transphobic rhetoric within this debate. This transphobic language comes from the fact that they only use the term "woman" "women" "mother" and other female gendered words to describe pregnancy. As you will notice, Con has always used the term pregnant person and pregnant individual to avoid this. What this means is that Pro doesn't make pregnant dads who have female sexual organs but identify as male as well as gender neutral/non-binary individuals who are pregnant included within his rhetoric. Acknowledging that Pro has done this, I will list out the reasons this is wrong as well as talk about how the counter proposal solves.
A. The first issue is hinged on the debate space itself. Debates like this have no real effects on ethics and don't change any policy makers opinions, meaning that the only real effect to come out of online debates like this is the education gained between the debaters from hearing out another side of an issue or testing out an opposing side (like I'm doing, being personally pro-choice, though for quite different reasons then presented by Pro) and the education gained by judges who read this and get to see a conversation play out. Now, this educational value is hinged on the accessibility to the conversation from a technical and societal standpoint. Technically, I can't really help if individuals don't have computers, internet, or any other necessary technology, but societally, it's our duty to create the most inclusive online community to increase the amount of viewpoints and education. By running an case that is inherently transphobic in its rhetoric and lack of acknowledgement of pregnant men and non-binary/genderfluid individuals, you foster a community in which trans people don't know if their voices will be heard and feel intimidated to join the space. This leads to multiple impacts for this issue alone.
I. It leads to a lack of reliable accounts on transgender issues. Any conversation of social relevance to the the transgender and non-binary/gender fluid is going to miss key voices necessary to have a true educational value to them from all sides. At best, we'll get conversations where cis gendered individuals are going to advocate on behalf of transgender and non-binary/gender fluid individuals, and while that's good, it isn't helpful if their voices are invisible on websites like this. This leads to a lack of good advocacy for transgender and non-binary/gender fluid rights and issues because it's all based on second hand accounts. Since transgender individuals make up Less than 1% of the population in the United States, and these numbers don't jump any higher globally, any chance that you make even one person feel uncomfortable to speak up can be detrimental to education. 
II. It's even especially worse on a topic like this because this is an issue that isn't related to the transgender conversation inherently, so to exclude transgender and genderfluid/non binary from a topic like this, intentionally or not, is especially harmful to their mental well-being. For seemingly unrelated issues to inherently be biased against them in the general assumptions, this leads to psychological damage. With suicide attempt rates of over 50% for transgender males, 29.9% for transgender females, and 41.8% for non binary individuals, we can see there is societal impacts of everything being gendered and harming their psychological well-being. Anything we can do to open the space up and make it more inclusive must be taken to help with the societal violence, especially since this can be a platform to talk about societal issues facing their communities.
B. The counter proposal solves because the entirety of the Con speech, which is an advocacy for the counter proposal, is gender neutral except when quoting Pro. On top of this, by specifically addressing the transgender and genderfluid/non binary stake in the issue, we open up the conversation about their inclusion as well as for comments to educationally build of our debate.
C. To preempt the issue of me using gendered pronouns in relation to my opponent like "he" and "his", it's because before the round I looked at his profile and that was the gender he had. If it was different, I would have responded differently and if it's incorrect, I can't be held accountable since I did my due diligence.

3. Currently abortion is used as a tool to push forward direct ableism. If we look at historical reasoning behind the defense of legalization, we can see this peppering the issue. Within the United States, two big issues that helped push the Supreme Court to vote in favor of abortions in Roe V. Wade was the case of Finkbine and rubella outbreaks. Finkbine was a TV host who had a pregnancy, and the morning sickness was affecting her work performance, so her husband gave her an overseas drug that made it go away. This led to a baby that had complications and had medical conditions. She applied for an abortion under the  guise of it harming her life and an abortion approved it, then when she publicly told her story, the hospital cancelled. The media went into a frenzy about how she was "forced to carry a horribly deformed child". The other big factor was the rubella outbreak, which had a high chance of creating disabilities within unborn children if pregnant individuals ended up catching this disease. So the biggest factor in the legalization and legally ethical stance on abortion was the ableist value that someone should be put down like an animal if they are disabled. This is even a factor in the present. Close to 100% of pregnant individuals in Iceland terminate pregnancies with down syndrome, and other countries are following suit. There are multiple impacts to this.
A. This is a literal genocide on the disabled. We're killing all of the disabled people we can before they're born. This has two unique issues.
I. Genocide is fucking bad. I don't need to impact this out anymore than genocide. What I will do the work on is showing this as a unique reason my opponent's ethical framework is inherently flawed. By trying to justify that well-being comes before life, he justifies that lives that aren't well don't have to ethically be preserved. This is inherently wrong, especially since his ethical framework justifies genocide. This is why chance at life is the most important ethical framework.
II. Looking past the genocide, this will only make the lives of people who become disabled later in life or those born disabled worse. If there is a huge dip in the disabled population, there is a lot less incentive to make places accessible, education accessible, or basic living conditions accessible. If the number goes way down, there's going to be dips in special education funds in developed nations, accessibility regulations will be laxed, and the well-being of all of the disabled. What this shows is that he violates his own framework through his plan if you take the time to look past abortion as the immediate issue.
B. Counter proposal solves because it still labels it unethical to get an abortion just because the fetus will grow to be disabled.

Opponent's points.

1. His whole point about the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the pregnant individual is flawed for multiple reasons.
A. Counter proposal solves. This point becomes a wash at this point and isn't a unique reason to vote Pro.
B. I would argue that the relationship can't be parasitic because it is more closely attuned to a symbiotic relationship. For individuals who don't have complications, they gain the benefits of less painful periods, protection from breast cancer, lower risks of other cancers, multiple sclerosis, and lower risk of diabetes and heart disease. While the pregnancy could have complications, this is only about an 8% chance, and this is all complications, even the ones that can be treated. What this means is that there is a much higher chance that the well-being of a pregnant individual is going to benefit from a pregnancy to term rather than from an abortion. My opponent's plan destroys all of this gain.

2. His whole second point about human rights has multiple issues.
A. The argument that fetuses aren't mentioned in the statute of human rights is irrelevant. Since this is a question into the ethical and moral background of the abortion, my opponent has a duty to ethically justify every argument made. He can use laws as background or proof of the reasoning (for example, I used the Roe V. Wade analysis to question the ableist background, but then I justified why this ableism is bad ethically). Force him to actually warrant why the human rights statute worded to exclude fetuses is better for ethics.
B. The argument that fetuses are a biological part of the of the pregnant individual because of the "parasitic relationship" is wrong. Firstly, his definition of parasitic relationship specifically outlines one organism feeds on another, so it inherently disproves the point he is trying to make. I would like that to be cross applied to answer this entire point. This then justifies that the fetus has an equal shot at life. Cross apply my entire ethical framework why this shot at life is good.
C. Even if Pro's case was better for human rights for the pregnant individual, I would say this get's outweighed on the life stolen from the fetus, psychological done to transgenders through Pro's rhetoric, and ableist genocide sponsored through abortion. Very simply, the amount of human rights lost to give the right to terminate a pregnancy is not worth the tradeoff.
D. The human right statute is inherently contradictory and should be ignored. I will be quoting the gendered language of the statute, and this in no way reflects the values of the counter proposal or Con. This is necessary to properly answer Pro. The beginning of the statute states that "Reaffirming that the human rights of women include a woman’s right to have control over and to decide freely and responsibly on matters related to her sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence" but then says directly after this "and that equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the dignity, integrity and autonomy of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences." I understand that I posted the entire statute practically, but I needed you to see this in it's to seperate parts. The first part says that the pregnant individual should have full autonomy over all their decisions, but the second part says that the pregnant individual and the other sexual partner have equal say in reproduction. You can't have full autonomy and have equality in decisions between two partners. Since my opponent didn't do the work to independently, ethically justify these human rights, and completely based it on the UN charter's existence, the fact that it's contradictory at best and patriarchal at worst means we need to not value it.

Conclusion
Pro's points have both been disproven, a superior ethical framework has been asserted that trumps Pro's case and framework, and we've shown multiple reasons why Pro's rhetoric and proposal is bad. Passing it back over.

P.S.
The original rules had three constructives two rebuttals. Do we want to do 2-2 or 3-1? I'm cool with either, just answer this in the next speech.





Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Extend the problems with his framework as well as my own, extend my counter proposal and all my points against Pro, and extend my answers to Pro's points.
Round 4
Pro
Preamble

 
Thanks for the response Ancap460,
 
  • To begin I will summarize the structure of argumentation that way voters/my opponent can easily read the flow of my argument:
Pro will answer each point chronologically as made by Con, by quoting the main topic(s) sentences of each section and any other’s needed to represent Con’s argument effectively. 
 
  • Afterwhich, Pro will extend or add any new related information to past contentions, but will not add new contentions. This is done with the goal of stopping any dishonest tactics on Pro’s side, but Con is more than welcome to add more contentions. 
 
Next, then, I will summarize my points and conclude who has and hasn’t fulfilled their burden of proof. 
 
Summary
  • Framework - Counter and Rebuttal
  • Arguments - Rebuttal to Con’s arguments
  • Opponent - Counter Rebuttal to Con’s rebuttal
  • Conclusion - Pro conclude’s
 
Each of these contentions will be renamed to fit the content of the argument itself and will add my own contention name in parentheses that way the flow of my argument is apparent. 
 
To answer Con’s question within p.s; 2 contentions is fine, due to the time constraints, also do note, that each quoting of my opponent is incomplete. This is due to the character restriction, and Con's full argument is what I am responding to, the quote is for the voter's benefit. 
 
Onto the first contention.
 

Framework [Human well-being as the moral standard (Case 1)]

 
Con uses a couple of subsections within their larger argument, which will be provided below:
 
  1. Apparent violation of my own moral standard
  2. Life as a counter ethical framework
 
Furthermore, they conclude as such:
 
  • “Pro either needs to prove they meet mine or defend why there's is better and why they meet theirs. Don't let them shift into a completely new ethical framework, skews all of neg's ability to be able to debate.”
 
Of course not Con, that would be very dishonest of Pro. Let’s address both why Pro’s standard is satisfactory, and why Con’s own framework is not.
 



Well-being as a Moral Standard (Rebuttal)
 

 
  • “ The problem is that my opponent's ethical framework prioritizes well-being for it's objectivity and general goodness, but it doesn't give you a weigh to value the well being of different individuals.”
 
To restate Con’s statement in a, perhaps more organized format:
 
  • Pro argues Well-being as a moral standard due it’s objectivity and goodness
  • This is a problem
  • It doesn’t provide a way of valuing the well-being of different individuals  
 
(Note: If this isn’t an accurate representation of Con’s views, please do address it as such in the next round.)
 
The point being made is faulty for a couple of reasons
 
  1. It represents a misunderstanding of Pro’s argument
  2. Ignores a tenant of said argument 
 
Recall Pro’s summation of their last contention within case 1:
 
  • “Essentially
 
  • well-being is as inclusive as a standard you can get, considering that it dictates everybody.
  •  It is the most applicable considering that it is what we apply to measure our health, mentally and physically. “
Note that “goodness” is not at all mentioned within Pro’s summation and that it does indeed provide a way of addressing other’s well-being. As well-being applies to everybody.


Furthermore, the point one should take from this objection, is that the foundation upon which Con has taken problem with Pro’s argument is inherently flawed 

Let us continue then


  • “ This means that we inherently have to value any question on how much harm is being done to an individual. We can't evaluate ethics on any other basis besides well-being, so if you have to harm someone's, you choose the one who would be least harmed.”


This is another flawed sentiment, this time with separate problems, see below:


  1. It mistake’s well-being and harm as the same thing
  2. It includes a misunderstanding of rhetoric, i.e, “We can’t evaluate ethics on any basis besides well-being,” because that is akin to saying, “We can’t evaluate truth on any basis besides truth.”
  3. It ignores the value of benefits and positive influence on well-being


These three objections are more than enough to further discredit this statement, which in context, was used to back up their previous quote.


  • “This would inherently be the fetus's, as it's termination would result in an entire life being stripped from it while a an individual having an average pregnancy would only have nine months and a painful pregnancy. Death, or at least the loss of a potential life, is much worse to the well-being of any individual than 9 months and a painful couple of days at most.”


Again, the point being made here is not valid. Though this argument does not necessarily require Con’s setup statements to be flawed, voters should note this as the case. Here are the problems with this specific argument.


  • Assumes pregnancy only minorly/temporarily affects bearer, it does not.
  • Assumes pregnancy only physically affects the bearer’s well-being and does not consider the psychological effects of pregnancy.
  • Uses the standard, potential of life, but does not consider masturbation or birth pills as immoral
  • Quantifies death as inherently worse than pain, yet it would seem an absurdity to conclude a fly dying more harmful than a human’s pain by this metric
For those reasons, my standard more than stands up to Con’s scrutiny.




Life as a new standard (Rebuttal)



  • “ As a counter ethical framework, I would argue that we should focus on the chance of life itself. Multitude of reasons.”

Pro look’s forward to answering any question regarding their validity.
 

  • “A. You can only evaluate well-being on the basis that there is a living being to give insight into their well-being. What this means is that the value on the chance of life itself is more important. The only way for my opponent to access his arguments about ethical objectivity is if they first pass through my ethical standard. This is a question of what initially comes first. Force my opponent to prove that life isn't a critical starting point to reach before well-being for him to win that his ethical standard is better.”


There are several reasons why this is fallacious, but Pro will break down the quote into three central lines of reasoning 

  1. Life is the precursor to well-being
  2. Pro can not access well-being without taking life into account
  3. Forces pro to prove life isn’t the necessary obstacle to get to well-being
 
  • Firstly, we are not talking about the same kind of life, we are talking about harmful life vs active life. As in - the life that is regarded to within the context of this debate, or the “life” of the fetus, is both harmful to the bearer and a part of said bearer’s natural body.
This would therefore denote harmful life as well within the bounds to extinguish given the context. 

  • Secondly, given the absurdity of proving these accommodations to; bacteria, eggs, sperm, human cells, etc, render the concept of, the chance of life, invalid

Given both of these objections, this line of argument is rendered untrue, due to the misunderstanding of Pro’s rhetoric and inclusion of absurdities and slippery slopes to justify their own. 


  • “B. Life is more objective than well-being because what counts as well-being isn't inherently on the same page. Can you have well-being if you don't have an economically stable position? Leftist economics would say no while right wing economics would say yes....... With so much subjective nuance, we have to defer to something with more objectivity, which is life. Life is the only thing that we are all guaranteed to experience as human beings, so we must prioritize that as an objective thing we should all have a shot at....” 

This is a long wall of argument, let’s break it down further to get a better look at it. 
  1. Life is a more objective standard than well-being
  2. Examples of why this is so, provided by Con
  3. Well-being is nuanced and therefore not objective
  4. Refers to the prior argument (a)
 
  • Life can not be a more objective standard of well-being, considering that life is a measurement of well-being. Life and death are simply two states/considerations of well-being, claiming otherwise would be similar to claiming a fact as more true than truth, a fact is simply a statement of truth.
It is a non-sequitur to conclude life as more objective than truth, considering that it is a state of well-being, this seems to come from a misunderstanding of Con on the terms of well-being, and we see this time and time again. 


  • Con also presents working out in two different perspectives but forgets to nuance their own argument. Indeed the force or constant reinforcement of rhetoric regarding working out is indeed coercion and can be very damaging, working out correctly is factually positive towards your wellbeing.

Pro’s point regarding these examples is that they are flawed from the outset, and do not demonstrate any of his rhetoric, therefore also limiting the persuasive power it has. Basically: Con undermines their own argument


  • Con’s next argument regards the need for a shot at life before one can measure well-being. This is another appeal to the “chance of life” line of reasoning that Pro has debunked before. The error of this reasoning is the fact that that “life” is a) characterized as a harmful life as I have previously described, b) apart of another life’s rights. 
 
This is nothing more than another attempt to falsely characterize well-being as not as objective as another standard. The standard is life, even though life itself is a measurement of well-being, and more appeals to a chance of life. 
 

Onward we march,

 
  • “Pro violates this ethical standard as well because they inherently don't prioritize life. By saying that an individual can lose access to life (this isn't about murdering a fetus, but about it losing the chance at living and establishing well being), Pro violates this ethical standard.”
 
To respond: 
 
  • Life is of course considered, as life is a section of well being, and therefore inherently considered. 
  • The fetus’s well-being is superseded because; it violates another individual’s well-being, and it is biologically apart of that individual and therefore under their bodily autonomy. 
 
In other words - Con does not at all demonstrate their BoP for these claims or this counter-proposal 
 
Essentially, Pro has fulfilled all terms that Con requested, recall:
 
  • “3. Pro either needs to prove they meet mine or defend why there's is better and why they meet theirs. Don't let them shift into a completely new ethical framework, skews all of neg's ability to be able to debate.”
 
Moving onto the next section of arguments 

 
Arguments [Con’s Constructive]
 

Con uses a couple of subsections within their larger argument, which will be provided below:
 
  1. Abortion is unethical in all cases except where the pregnant individual is at risk of permanent harm.
  2. Transphobia - and the presence of it inherently within Pro’s argument
  3. Abortion is used as a tool to push forward direct ableism
 
To clarify - The purpose of this case is to push fulfill the Con’s BoP, “Abortion is not ethical” as such, these arguments should justify this claim. 
 

The limited ethical quality of abortion (Rebuttal)

 
To start, the terms of this “counter-proposal” present a problem for Con right away. Specifically: 
 
  • The BoP on Con is to demonstrate that Abortion is unethical, if they prove abortion unethical some of the time, they have not fully fulfilled their BoP, so regardless of content; this argument inherently does not fully justify their claim. 
 
To begin the actual argument: 
 
  • “A. The counter-proposal is better within Pro's ethical framework because it inherently values the well-being of the fetus and its ability to even derive well-being in the future. Focusing solely on the pregnant person's well-being creates a situation where we simply aren't evaluating well-being in the totality of the situation. To assume that the well-being associated with an entire life is outweighed by nine months (since the aff doesn't get to weigh harm to the pregnant person's permanent damage since we call those abortions ethical) and the pain of the pregnancy completely demeans that life. Also, it doesn't force a pregnant person to take damage to their well-being equal to what the fetus would deal with, which is permanent damage. This means that we always prioritize the situation that creates the most well-being for all, not simply the pregnant individual.” 
 
Usually, this is the point where Pro would restate the Con’s case in easier to follow terms, but there is no need to make a unique break down, seeing as this is simply an elaborated form of the argument used to justify life as a standard.  Though Pro will break down said argument regardless: 
 
  1. Is within Pro’s framework due to prioritization of life, therefore a better model than Pro’s
  2. We should focus on total well-being, and Con’s argument does this more satisfactorily than Pro’s
  3. Fetus Well-being vs Bearer’s wellbeing 
 
 
  • As has been previously explained: Life is simply a measurement of well-being, and is therefore inherently considered in the argument, it is the characterizations of this life that we look at for well-being measurement. Not to mention that this argument is using a previously rebutted point to justify itself. 
 
This is another case of Con not understanding how the values of well-being and life intersect and interact with one another. 

  • Specifically, the Con points out that Pro has apparently not considered the well-being of the fetus in their case, but I have very much taken this into consideration within my rebuttals: Recall; Pro’s argument regarding the character of the life of the fetus
 
 (note: character as in characteristic physically) 
 

Another thing to take into account is Con’s aside, I will quote it here: “since the aff doesn't get to weigh harm to the pregnant person's permanent damage since we call those abortions ethical” I’m not quite sure what this means, but I assume they are referring to the permanence of harm if such I will regard below:
 
  • This is the more specific point Pro is referring to whenever they say, “Reused argument” as I have already rebutted the claim that the fetuses’ well-being overrules the mother. Specifically that they do not take into account mental and permanent harm on account of the bearer, nor the harmfulness of the fetus or account of it being apart of the bearer biologically. 
 
Overall the arguments are really just a more detailed version of what I’ve rebutted previously, so more in-depth rebuttals would be found in my refutations above. 
 
Onward
 
  • “B. The counter-proposal is better within Con's ethical framework because it prioritizes the creation of a chance at life for the fetus, and the only time that this is negated is when there is a risk of death to the pregnant individual. What this means is that we prioritize creating the most amount of lives, and when there would be a tradeoff, we give the choice to the pregnant individual since they are the only what that can advocate for a decision. “
 
If I were to summarize this point I would do it as such:
 
  1. Counter prioritizes the creation of a chance of life
  2. It is only negated when life of the bearer is in question
  3. We ought to prioritize the creation of life
  4. We then give the decision to the bearer
 
Let’s rebut each point then:
 
  • Never does Con justify effectively why we should consider chance of life, and it leads into the absurdities I described above: Giving moral consideration and life to sperm, eggs, human cells (considering the genetic information within them), etc… This rebuts points 1 and 3. 
 



  • This isn’t really a line of reasoning that demonstrates or even supports Con’s claim, instead simply being an action that should be taken to justify their previous statements. Though instead, it seems to imply that one should ignore ethicality whenever choice of the bearer is involved, seeming to go against their BoP
 
To the last point within this section: 
 
  • “C. It solves the entire first point of the Pro case. Very simply, if a fetus does enough harm to lead to permanent damage, then the abortion becomes ethical, meaning they don't get to weigh it. If it doesn't do enough harm to be permanent, then it violates both ethical frameworks to abort it. Either the counter proposal solves or the aff fails to be ethical by their own standard. What this means is that the only difference between the Pro Case and the counter proposal is now the question of their question of "Human Rights of Woman".....”
 
This is more of a summation, but I will demonstrate the non-sequiturs within it:
 
  1. If harm caused by fetus’s is permanent, then abortion is ethical 
  2. Question of Human rights of woman, which will be clarified
 
  • Non-sequitur - “a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.” The thought that the proposal fulfills the Con’s BoP is a fallacy, As it proves that Abortion is unethical, some of the time, which I highlighted at the beginning of this section. Not to mention that I have already produced evidence of permanent harm caused by pregnancies. 
 
This isn’t even to mention that the framework required to make this aside has already been rebutted, and therefore Con has no standing ground to make this assertion. Their ought statement is left open-ended
 
  • As Con clarifies that they will address the question of Human rights later I will address it later. 
 
To the next section: 

 
Transphobia - and the presence of it inherently within Pro’s argument (Rebuttal)
 
  • “2. My opponent inherently utilizes transphobic rhetoric within this debate. This transphobic language comes from the fact that they only use the term "woman" "women" "mother" and other female gendered words to describe pregnancy. As you will notice, Con has always used the term pregnant person and pregnant individual to avoid this. What this means is that Pro doesn't make pregnant dads who have female sexual organs but identify as male as well as gender neutral/non-binary individuals who are pregnant included within his rhetoric. Acknowledging that Pro has done this, I will list out the reasons this is wrong as well as talk about how the counter-proposal solves
 
Though this is a massive wall of text, I only have three response to it:

 
  • Any transphobia/transphobic language was not meant intentionally and as such, I have readjusted my own language to fit within the guides of this issue. The point being, it is not a position the Pro has to inherently possess, and I can, in fact, the drop is quite easily. 
 
  • This entire argument is precedented on Con’s counter-proposal, seeing as I have already rebutted it, this entire argument has no room or ground to prove anything. Without a comparison of “proposals,” this entire section is irrelevant.  
 
  • This entire argument could be classified as a red herring or an argument thrown in to distract from the main point of the discussion or debate. As I have already established it is not something I must inherently hold, and it does not at all address the notion of, “IS abortion ethical”
 
Therefore I must dismiss this argument, though I do applaud Con for their correctness in the fact that I was being inconsiderate to trans individuals. 
 
 
Abortion is used as a tool to push forward direct ableism (Rebuttal)
 

  • “Currently abortion is used as a tool to push forward direct ableism. If we look at historical reasoning behind the defense of legalization, we can see this peppering the issue. Within the United States, two big issues that helped push the Supreme Court to vote in favor of abortions in Roe V. Wade was the case of Finkbine and rubella outbreaks. Finkbine was a TV host who had a pregnancy, and the morning sickness was affecting her work performance, so her husband gave her an overseas drug that made it go away. ....This is even a factor in the present. Close to 100% of pregnant individuals in Iceland terminate pregnancies with down syndrome, and other countries are following suit. There are multiple impacts to this.”

 
I would first like to make a definition clear to all,
 
  •  “Ableism - Discrimination in favor of able-bodied people “
 
Now that we are all familiar with the term, let’s compare it to the resolution and following definitions, the resolution, “Is abortion ethical,” where the definition of abortion:
 
  • Abortion - "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"” 
 
This would lead us to conclude that abortion is not inherently ablistic, and the sole problem is the use of it in those ways. To justify the position that Abortions are, on balance, used to further an ablistic direction, CON provides a citation of one country doing it for one genetic disorder. 
 
  • Con must demonstrate that, generally, abortions are used to discriminate against those not able-bodied but have not at all sufficiently justified this. Instead, I will argue that they are typically listed as not under any specific reason for occurrence other than the bearer’s wish, though some reasons may include: not able to financially support another child, not wishing to have another child, etc..
 
The second thing one should observe from their look at Con’s argument is that is it generally supported by one figure and a single example, this does not at all fulfill their BoP on this as an actual issue Pro has to solve. 
 
Moving on
 
  • “ This is a literal genocide on the disabled. We're killing all of the disabled people we can before they're born. This has two unique issues
 
Once more, this entire, “tirade” if you will, is precedented on a single piece of evidence. There is no reason to conclude that countries are typically or even at all, besides Iceland, which is home to a relatively small population and a smaller abortion rate, use abortion as a tool of genocide
 
  • Non-issue, negated
 
Onto the next section
 
 
Opponent [Con’s Rebuttal]

 
Con uses a couple of subsections within their larger argument, which will be provided below:
 
  1. Parasitic Relationship of Bearer and Fetus
  2. Human Rights - Bodily Autonomy
 
To clarify - The purpose of this case is to negate Pro’s case, that abortions are ethical, and should prove Pro's case false as such
 
 
Parasitic Relationship of Beater and Fetus

 
  • “ His whole point about the parasitic relationship between the fetus and the pregnant individual is flawed for multiple reasons.
  • A. Counter proposal solves. This point becomes a wash at this point and isn't a unique reason to vote Pro.”
 
This is the establishment of Con’s argument’s though I take issue with the second point. As Con’ C-P has been rebutted much farther up in this argument.  Not to mention the voters should vote as regarding who better fulfilled their BoP, which Con’s counter-proposal does not fully do. 
 
 
To briefly summarize Con:
 
  1. The relationship between the bearer and the fetus is more related to a symbiotic one than a parasitic one
  2. The risk of complication is relatively low
  3. Therefore abortion would destroy these benefits
 
 
  • Firstly, Citations cited by Con are devoid of scientific backing, or do not provide further data to support their claims, nor do they take into account the counter, as my own does

  • Secondly, the same can be said for the second citation used by Con, and could easily be interrupted as the complications listed within the source and not at all referring to Pro’s sources. Either way, no symbiotic relationship has been established. 

  • Finally, the definition I provided back within my first argument is still being fulfilled and is therefore valid. 
 
Human Rights - Bodily Autonomy

  • “A. The argument that fetuses aren't mentioned in the statute of human rights is irrelevant...... Force him to actually warrant why the human rights statute worded to exclude fetuses is better for ethics.”
 
Simply enough to rebut: and I will do as such, recall:
 
  • That the appeal to this specific argument was an aside, as in, the reference that the human rights statute does not reference fetuses, and that I did indeed provide the reasoning of why the human right’s bill inherently increases well-being. 
 
  • Secondly, the statute is clear in defining it as applying to “all humans” and thus Con would have to demonstrate all states of a fetus uniquely human, though this is a small issue regardless. 
 
Continuing forward
 
  • “ The argument that fetuses are a biological part of the of the pregnant individual because of the "parasitic relationship" is wrong. Firstly, his definition of \ Cross apply my entire ethical framework why this shot at life is good.
  • Very simply, the amount of human rights lost to give the right to terminate a pregnancy is not worth the tradeoff.”
 
I would like to point out that almost all of this rhetoric is simply relying on past arguments, and not all applying new information to disregard my points. Until my opponent has answered my rebuttals, this entire point is rendered useless. 
 
  • As for the attempt to use the word, organism, to disprove my point. This is a non-sequitur, as I have never implied that a fetus is not an organism, simply noting that it does not have the same characteristics as the bearer as an organism. 
 
  • Not to mention that even within Con’s appeal to transphobia, they did not demonstrate transgender individuals as taking harm from my “rhetoric” instead of arguing the potential could, but I have already substantiated why my argument isn’t preceded on any inherently transphobic principals.
 
To summarize, a non issue so far
 
  • “. The human right statute is inherently contradictory and should be ignored. I will be quoting the gendered language of the statute, and this in no way reflects the values of the counter proposal or Con. ...You can't have full autonomy and have equality in decisions between two partners. Since my opponent didn't do the work to independently, ethically justify these human rights, and completely based it on the UN charter's existence, the fact that it's contradictory at best and patriarchal at worst means we need to not value it.”
 
I will briefly justify why the human rights charter is positive towards well-being. 
 
  • Human rights are used to stop violations of well-being that inherently hurt and harm people: such as slavery, rape, murder, forced coercion, silencing, etc…
  • The stop of harm is a benefit
  • Therefore Human rights re morally good
 
This argument is very intuitive and nearly a truism. Not to mention they bring back up human rights as an attempt to disprove my initial point but do not regard my past arguments which  I have justified as essential to this.

  • Claiming that one should ignore the human rights statute is an inherent appeal to ignorance and does not satisfactorily answer Pro's case given the case above. 

 Contentions


  • The Parasitic Relationship between Bearer and fetus: Extend

  • The Human Rights of Bodily Autonomy: Extend

Conclusion

 
To conclude my thoughts on the debate so far, though Con's counter proposal is an interesting line of argument it fails on several fronts. One, it the one of the two justifications for each of their contentions, and simply rebutting the counter proposal has a fractal effect. Two, it is precedented on a misunderstood ethical frame work that has also been debunked, further deeping the fractal. 

  • As such, Con has neither established their own case, nor effectively rebutted my own. 
  • The Con's BoP has not been fulfilled, while Pros remains fulfilled 
Thank you Ancap460, and I apologize for my frequent lateness of argument. I look forward to the next argument.







Con
I will continue the ethical framework debate, extend my points, and then answer my opponent's points. With the other round forfeited, I'm going to use this speech as a constructive and present no new args in my final speech.

Framework
1. My opponent defends his framework by using a laundry list of unwarranted single line attacks against it. First of all, in general, you should take them with a grain of salt. I could sit here and write 30,000 characters of one line reasons Pro is bad, but that isn't a very warranted or proven argument, and you should value all of Con's one line answers as such.  I will answer each one individually
A. His first list has two points.
I. The claim that everyone has well-being really ignores those who are aborted. Well-being can only be measured in those who are alive, so those who are aborted don't get to have their well-being evaluated. This is a direct reason to prefer my ethical framework.
II. Saying it's most applicable because it measures physical and mental well being ignores the entire point that we have to compare well-beings. If you want to make a decision where one person is going to have an ethical right to do something to another individual, you have to also determine a framework where you can weigh well-being, and a loss of the ability to measure well-being should be taken as the most egregious attack against well-being.
B. his second list has three points.
I. Harm is an antagonizer of well-being, so it has to be something that can be weighed against others harm. I weigh the harm the pregnant individual would do to the fetus as more than vice versa, especially since the termination of the fetus results in no ability to ever measure or give it well-being, so it is negative an entire life's worth of well-being.
II. He's just sayings that since my point is right, it's right. This statement doesn't mean anything and doesn't answer the inherent lack of objectivity in well-being.
III. I don't ignore the benefits of well-being, I'm saying that well-being needs a chance to be extended to other individuals and not be robbed from fetuses.
C. His third list has four points.
I. I would say death outweighs all of these issues since none of these are harm, but just physical changes. While a lot of these are permanent, so is death, or at least permanently losing your chance at life. To conflate "shoe size", which is first on the list to the loss of all ability to ever measure your well-being is simple irrelevant. Cross apply the laundry list of healthy benefits pregnancy gives as well as a counter.
II. Firstly, the article my opponent cited is only psychological effects during pregnancy, meaning it completely fits within my point that an entire life being robbed is less than 9 months and birth. Extend that as practically dropped based on his evidence. To further answer his point and the preempt that it leads to lasting psychological damage, pregnant individuals who have an abortion are 81% more likely to experience mental health struggles. If we're worried about permanent well-being, then we need to worry about the damage caused by abortions.
III. I never said birth pills or masturbation is or isn't illegal. Since this is an ethical question, I don't have to prove that it is plausible to place my ethical framework in legality, I just have to justify that it's the most ethical, so, sure, birth pills, masturbation, an all contraceptives are unethical.
IV. I never specify animals and only talk about human beings. He has a laundry list of reasons why this is bad from a human based framework, so do a gut check. I'm not shifting, he's losing a one line attack in a total list of 9, 8 not including this one. I had assumed the conversation was about humans, and he isn't losing any equitable ground. My ethical framework is specifically about humans.

2. He once again uses the one line list method, so I will answer it as previously.
A. He has two points against this original point. I'll answer them separately.
I. He says fetuses are harmful and therefore fair ground to be extinguished. This has two separate issues.
a. Fetuses aren't harmful. Extend across my answers from the previous framework debate as well as the laundry list of benefits that pregnancy gives. 
b. This isn't fair ground for them being extinguished if it does more harm then what the fetus is doing. Even under his own framework, this would lower the fetuses well-being more than it would lower the pregnant individuals, meaning we can't extinguish it there. I use extinguish because that is the word my opponent used.
II. Once again, bacteria isn't human. When it comes to sperm and egg cells, sure, masturbation is unethical as well as surgeries that somehow inhibit this. He hasn't given a reason it isn't besides "it's absurd", but absurd doesn't mean wrong. Lastly, on cells, a skin cell doesn't have a chance at life, so this doesn't apply to the conversation.
III. Extend the original and dropped point that life comes before well-being and you have to have a chance at life to every interpret well-being. This point was inherently dropped and stands as an independent reason to support my framework over his.
B. He once again creates a list.
I. This one is really interesting because my opponent just cited the reason that he doesn't meet his own framework as a reason my framework is bad. He's put himself in a double bind. By saying that life is just another measurement of well being, either
a. Life is greatly and objectively better for well-being than death meaning the damage done to the fetuses well-being definitely outweighs that of the pregnant individuals, or
b. Well-being is so subjective that we can't even measure life or death as the better of the two, meaning that chance at life prevails as the more objective framework.
II. It's not an appeal to ignorance, it compares the what the well-being of people affected by regulations and taxes created to lower poverty would be compared to those in actual poverty. Also, the very fact that it is partisan is a reason to say it's subjective. The question isn't "is poverty objectively bad", but "if we implement regulations to address poverty, would that negatively impact the riches well-being more than it would help the impoverished." Once again, we're getting lost in the example and not the premise, which is that there are so many different ways to weigh well-being that there is little to no objectivity while life provides an adequate amount of objectivity. Everyone should get a chance to be alive to then have their well-being established.
III. On working out, all I'm doing is showing their is subjectivity and a lack of objectivity.
C. Lastly, he gives a short list to this point.
I. Extend the previous double bind as an answer as to why saying life is a subset of well-being is important.
II. Bodily autonomy has never been warranted in it's relation to well-being or why it supersedes well-being. This is the ethical framework shift I discussed at the very beginning. He wants to defend well-being, fine, don't let him throw autonomy as a weighing factor when it hasn't yet. Also, as a true rebuttal rather than just calling out how he shifts, it doesn't matter on autonomy. More well-being is lost by killing a fetus than your  average pregnancy. (Average is key because those that cause permanent harm violate the counter proposal.) Very simply, the autonomy is only lost for 9 months, while a fetus would lose their chance at autonomy. The problem is that this once again doesn't weigh the fetus's existence and simply just throws the pregnant individuals to the front.

My points
1. On the counter proposal, his only argument about it in general is it doesn't fulfill my burden of proof. It does, because to quote the description/rules "Contender's Position: CON Instigators claim: Abortion is not ethical/Unconvinced of PRO's claim, "Abortion is ethical"" This is an inherent reason I'm not convinced of Pro's claim, abortion isn't ethical in it's totality just because there it is in a few parametric examples. That's the point of the counter proposal, it is to give an alternative to the resolution that would make a judge unconvinced of Pro's claim. If it works, then I win, if it doesn't, then I might win on the independent reasons (ableism, frameworks, etc.) or I may lose.
A. I will answer all my opponent's points.
I. Life isn't relevant to this point. This point was why the counter proposal fulfills the burden of well-being. To answer the point anyway, cross apply the double bind of saying life is a status of well-being.
II. Pro says they have taken the well-being of the fetus into consideration because they called the fetus a parasite and claimed bodily autonomy. Cross apply where bodily autonomy was never warranted as to its relation with well-being, therefore doesn't really answer the point.
III. He says I don't weigh permanent damage, and I do. That's the whole point of the counter proposal. Also that source doesn't have anything about mental issues, so don't let my opponent fake sources.
B. Sub points
I. To say I never justify why life is important is to ignore the entire framework debate. Don't do that, and you'll know why chance at life is most important.
II. When it comes to mental health, there's two independent issues.
a. We can't track that prior to birth unless it's issues during pregnancy, which a psychiatrist could list as permanent harm, in which case, while I didn't bring it up directly, means I still somewhat solve.
b. Cross apply the negative mental health effects of abortion as a reason that it goes both ways, meaning mental health is at worst a wash.
III. The purpose of this point is to prove that the counter proposal is better for both ethical frameworks, this point specifically talking about my own. It was a preempt to any arguments that I don't meet my own ethical framework.
C. Cross apply the whole point about why this fulfills my burden of proof. I do want to add that my opponent claims he said that abortion is unethical sometimes, but this was never made as a point. I haven't been able to find it, unless he's talking about a one off where he said it, in which case, I would argue he has to defend abortion in totality. He is saying the act of abortion is ethical. That's his burden of proof. If I find a situation where it isn't, then I win that I'm not convinced of Con's claim.

2. I'm going to answer my opponent's three points on transphobia and add an extension at the bottom.
A. It's great you switched language, but your first speech is etched into this website forever. While it's great to make an effort going forward, this debate still has your transphobic rhetoric on it, so a simple switch doesn't solve the issue that everyone who has to judge this round or reads this round to get insight into abortion from our perspectives still has to feel excluded if they themselves are transgender or non-binary.
B. All I said was that the counter-proposal is an alternative that doesn't use transphobic rhetoric. If the impacts of this argument still constitute enough to weigh a victory for Con, then it should happen, with or without the counter proposal.
C. I specifically showed how it harms our educational value of abortion by no talking about a relevant group of people. To simply say "it's off topic" is the equivalent of justifying transphobic slurs. If my opponent had used harmful slurs for women (since his first speech used the gendered pronouns) throughout the entire first speech, and I called that out as an independent reason to vote Con, the answer "that's off topic" doesn't justify his use of sexism in this example. Similarly, him saying it's off topic shouldn't justify his transphobic rhetoric.
D. He never answered the impact or the fact that he used transphobic language, meaning that if you feel that him switching doesn't solve and the dropped impacts about the well-being of transgender and non-binary people as well as the education in this round as well as the debate space as a whole and these impacts outweigh in the round, this is an independent reason to vote Con. Also extend that education and accessibility is the only real impact of debates like this, so anything that harms that has to outweigh, meaning I do outweigh Pro.
E. If you don't feel that it is fair to vote Con on an argument about rhetoric because it's too off topic, then I have an alternative. Give me the conduct point, and if you were already going to do that because the forfeitures of my opponent, give me the grammar point instead of making it a tie. If you don't think my opponent's transphobia is an inherent reason to vote Con, don't let him get off scot free either. Give some amount of points to Con to show disapproval of transphobic language. His argument about solving it later doesn't change the fact that his rhetoric is etched into this site and debate forever now, so allow votes against it to show as well.

3. My argument about ableism has two rebuttals. I will answer both, and then extend what needs to be extended.
A. I gave two examples, the historical root of the United States and the current outlook of Iceland. He never refutes this and simply says "not enough". I'll give you some other numbers. Between 1998 and 2011, 67% of pregnant individuals who figured out their baby had down syndrome aborted it in the United States. In the UK, down syndrome is down 30% and the leading cause is abortions against disabled fetuses. Down syndrome as a whole is declining. Even if you don't buy that I prove it everywhere, extend the fact that it's happening in the US, UK, and Iceland.
B. His second answer is that since it's only an Icelandic thing, it's a non-issue. This is the equivalent of saying that since the Holocaust was only a Germany thing, it's a non issue. He agreed it was an abortion in Iceland, but his justification is that it's ok because it's a small genocide. Extend when I first said that genocide is a direct reason to say chance at life is better than well being ethical framing, and the fact that my opponent tries to justify a genocide as small is proof enough.
C. Extend that the genocide leads to worse well-being for all disabled because as their population decreases, there is less incentive to make their lives better. Even if I don't win it's a global phenomenon, I at leas win it's happening in the US, UK, and Iceland.

Opponent's Points
1. The parasitic relationship debate happens in the sub points.
A. On the counter proposal solving, he never disagrees with this point, which means that if I win that the counter proposal is within my burden of proof, extend that I solve.
B. I'll drop this point. Between the counter proposal solving and the violation of ethical frameworks, I don't need this.

2. Sub point argumentation
A. I would argue that the human rights statute is unethical because it doesn't give a shot at life for all. Cross apply my whole entire ethical framework why that's bad. He just says that the human rights statute has led to pragmatic good, but this is all about the ethical justification. Also, fetuses are human as they grow into a full adult human.
B. His only argument is that I use old arguments. These arguments are cross applied. If they apply here, then they need to be answered here. Extend the original warrant that my opponent can't call a fetus a separate organism but also a part of the pregnant individual bodies.
C. Same thing as before. Extend that the damage done to human rights is not worth the tradeoff.
D. I'm not saying ignore all statute of human rights, just this one. Rape, murder, slavery, genocide (like the one sponsored by Pro) are all bad. This part of the statute, however, is contradictory, patriarchal, and violates my ethical framework and therefore should be ignored. My opponent has yet to justify why this specific part of the statute is ethical, so it shouldn't be weighed.

Conclusion
Based on my winning ethical framework, counter proposal that leaves me unconvinced of Pro's burden of proof, and multiple arguments against, vote con.
Round 5
Pro
Preamble:

Thank you Ancap460 for the response,

In all, I would have to apologize for the two forfeits, but seeing as my opponent has so graciously continued on in the debate, so shall I. The next point of concern seems to be my “laundry lists of unwarranted linear attacks.” If Con would like a reason I will present them below, in a laundry list of unwarranted linear attacks.

  • Listed refutations are much more concise and straightforward

  • They are much easier for my opponent and voters to read than the non spaced wall of text that is Con’s style

In all seriousness, those are the reasons why I use the more listed arguments, though “unwarranted” is like saying I just shouldn’t argue at all, because something being warranted simply means it has to be justified. My points were all more than warranted. 

Seeing as the BoP I have assumed, means I have to justify the claim, “Abortion is ethical” it is well justified to respond to every single point with concise criticisms. Not to say I think Con is out of bounds or being unfair by stating their preferences, just pointing out that it isn’t a real problem.

Moving swiftly onward, I will do much as I did in the last debate and provide the main idea of a section and reply to the entire point, though I will try to use less “bulleted” points and instead simply remain in paragraph style.

To the structure of the round,

  • Framework (Counter)
  • Con’s Proposal (Counter)
  • Pro’s Case (Counter)
  • Summation/Closing Statement

Do note that regardless of the style of argumentation, it should be the content regarded for the truth or justifiability of a claim.


Framework [Well-being vs Life] 


My opponent first provides a critique of my overall style of argumentation, though I answered this in preamble so I will continue:
Con’s overall arguments are simply rebuttals to my argumentation, therefore I will supply the response (though it may appear smaller for sake of character space), and then respond myself and defend my rebuttal. 


Framework 1A-C


A.

  • “The claim that everyone has well-being really ignores those who are aborted. Well-being can only be measured in those who are alive, so those who are aborted don't get to have their well-being evaluated. This is a direct reason to prefer my ethical framework.” II. Saying it's most applicable because it measures physical and mental well being ignores the entire point that we have to compare well-beings. If you want to make a decision where one person is going to have an ethical right to do something to another individual, you have to also determine a framework where you can weigh well-being, and a loss of the ability to measure well-being should be taken as the most egregious attack against well-being.”

  1. We do not consider possible life in terms of well-being, that of the abortion, if we did then we would also have to consider the lifetime of pain and suffering said aborted one went through. For this reason, this is not sequitur. 
  2. Not particularly: This is ignoring the circumstances in which the well-being was “refused”, particularly in how said fetus was affecting another’s well-being. Again, if we were to measure well-being in potentials, we would have to account for the good and the bad. 

B.

  • “I. Harm is an antagonizer of well-being, so it has to be something that can be weighed against others harm. I weigh the harm the pregnant individual would do to the fetus as more than vice versa, especially since the termination of the fetus results in no ability to ever measure or give it well-being, so it is negative an entire life's worth of well-being.
II. He's just saying that since my point is right, it's right. This statement doesn't mean anything and doesn't answer the inherent lack of objectivity in well-being.
III. I don't ignore the benefits of well-being, I'm saying that well-being needs a chance to be extended to other individuals and not be robbed from fetuses.”

To answer in reverse order: 

  1. Robbed implies that the fetus’s right to harm the bearer is rightly theirs. This is incorrect, by definition of well-being, it is immoral to harm others. Not only is the fetus harming the bearer, but is doing so a part of their body. 
  2. The second point is nonsense, I was pointing out an absurdum in their argument. 
  3. Finally, a negative benefit could also be an antagonizer of well-being, ie: 2 - (-3) = -1. Which my opponent does not take into consideration.

C.

  • “. I would say death outweighs all of these issues since none of these are harm, but just physical changes. While a lot of these are permanent, so is death, or at least permanently losing your chance at life. To conflate "shoe size", which is first on the list to the loss of all ability to ever measure your well-being, is simply irrelevant. Cross apply the laundry list of healthy benefits pregnancy gives as well as a counter.
  • II. Firstly, the article my opponent cited is only psychological effects during pregnancy, meaning it completely fits within my point that an entire life being robbed is less than 9 months and birth. Extend that as practically dropped based on his evidence. To further answer his point and the preempt that it leads to lasting psychological damage, pregnant individuals who have an abortion are 81% more likely to experience mental health struggles. If we're worried about permanent well-being, then we need to worry about the damage caused by abortions.
  • III. I never said birth pills or masturbation is or isn't illegal. Since this is an ethical question, I don't have to prove that it is plausible to place my ethical framework in legality, I just have to justify that it's the most ethical, so, sure, birth pills, masturbation, and all contraceptives are unethical.
  • IV. I never specify animals and only talk about human beings. He has a laundry list of reasons why this is bad from a human based framework, so do a gut check. I'm not shifting, he's losing a one line attack in a total list of 9, 8 not including this one. I had assumed the conversation was about humans, and he isn't losing any equitable ground. My ethical framework is specifically about humans.”


  1. “None of these are harm just physical changes” this is incorrect Harm: Physical or mental damage: Injury” therefore the things I listed were harms. Again, Con does not provide research to justify their claim. 
  2. Completely ignores that I used two articles in these points, and has actually dropped my regard on Con’s article, seeing as their lack of scientific backing and all. Regarding their new source: It is extremely nuanced and cherry picking one claim without regarding the rest is an interesting strategy.  “It is more likely that these issues existed prior to the procedure or that the same stresses leading to the abortion triggered poor mental health.”
  3. I pointed this out as an absurdity, using their framework, these things would be unethical. Yet Con nearly drops the point, to limit an action like masturbation would also mean that any time a woman’s eggs died we should be throwing funerals. It is simply a note that using Con’s framework abusdities are true. 
  4. Most of this is Con using filler, but they are referring to my fly example, a better example would be the sperm, etc, use that instead. 


Framework 2A-C


2A.

  • “ He says fetuses are harmful and therefore fair ground to be extinguished. This has two separate issues.
  • a. Fetuses aren't harmful. Extend across my answers from the previous framework debate as well as the laundry list of benefits that pregnancy gives. 
  • b. This isn't fair ground for them being extinguished if it does more harm then what the fetus is doing. Even under his own framework, this would lower the fetuses well-being more than it would lower the pregnant individuals, meaning we can't extinguish it there. I use extinguish because that is the word my opponent used.
  • II. Once again, bacteria isn't human. When it comes to sperm and egg cells, sure, masturbation is unethical as well as surgeries that somehow inhibit this. He hasn't given a reason it isn't besides "it's absurd", but absurd doesn't mean wrong. Lastly, on cells, a skin cell doesn't have a chance at life, so this doesn't apply to the conversation.
  • III. Extend the original and dropped point that life comes before well-being and you have to have a chance at life to interpret well-being. This point was inherently dropped and stands as an independent reason to support my framework over his.”

  1. Fetuses are harmful. Extend across my answers from the previous framework debate as well as the laundry list of harms that pregnancy provides. 
  2. My first point is Con pointing out a choice of vocabulary, it fits, why not use it? They also completely refuse to engage with my rhetoric, besides, “It’s not fair, we shouldn’t do that.” Extend. 
  3. “reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction”
  4. Literally every point I brought up debunks this claim, I established an entire: harmful vs not harmful, and part of the biological system, to specifically debunk this claim. Con has refused to properly engage with Pro’s rhetoric, extend. 

2B.

  • “I. This one is really interesting because my opponent just cited the reason that he doesn't meet his own framework as a reason my framework is bad. He's put himself in a double bind. By saying that life is just another measurement of well being, either. Life is greatly and objectively better for well-being than death meaning the damage done to the fetuses well-being definitely outweighs that of the pregnant individuals, or
  • b. Well-being is so subjective that we can't even measure life or death as the better of the two, meaning that chance at life prevails as the more objective framework.
  • II. It's not an appeal to ignorance, it compares what the well-being of people affected by regulations and taxes created to lower poverty would be compared to those in actual poverty. Also, the very fact that it is partisan is a reason to say it's subjective. The question isn't "is poverty objectively bad", but "if we implement regulations to address poverty, would that negatively impact the riches well-being more than it would help the impoverished." Once again, we're getting lost in the example and not the premise, which is that there are so many different ways to weigh well-being that there is little to no objectivity while life provides an adequate amount of objectivity. Everyone should get a chance to be alive to then have their well-being established.
  • III. On working out, all I'm doing is showing there is subjectivity and a lack of objectivity.”

  1. Once more my opponent shows that they do not understand the rhetoric being used here, just as Male and Female are extremes on the spectrum of Gender, Life and Death are extremes on the spectrum of Well-being. Them being a state does not mean that they are the actual standard. There is no double-bind, this is nonsense. 
  2. If Well-being is subjective, then so is Life, seeing as Life is simply a particular state of Well-being. Not to mention that my source literally proved the thing they were saying. Yes it can be objectively measured as a bad or good thing. 
  3. They have gained no ground in that category, they either provide non-sequiturs or do not engage sources/rhetoric. 

2C. 

  • “Extend the previous double bind as an answer as to why saying life is a subset of well-being is important.
  • II. Bodily autonomy has never been warranted in its relation to well-being or why it supersedes well-being. This is the ethical framework shift I discussed at the very beginning. He wants to defend well-being, fine, don't let him throw autonomy as a weighing factor when it hasn't yet. Also, as a true rebuttal rather than just calling out how he shifts, it doesn't matter on autonomy. More well-being is lost by killing a fetus than your  average pregnancy. (Average is key because those that cause permanent harm violate the counter proposal.) Very simply, the autonomy is only lost for 9 months, while a fetus would lose their chance at autonomy. The problem is that this once again doesn't weigh the fetus's existence and simply just throws the pregnant individuals to the front.”

  1. Con says extend their point, I say extend mine, as I answered it previously
  2. Autonomy is a factor which contributes to well-being, and the loss of such has permanent physical and mental harms on the bearer. There is no shift, there is a measure of another thing that leads to the well being. See my previous sources on the harms of pregnancy. 

Con’s Constructive [Life, Transphobia, & Ableism]


Con provides three major points with 1A-C, 2A-E, and 3A-C, I will answer each of them as I have done above. 


CC-1A-C


A. 

  • “I. Life isn't relevant to this point. This point was why the counter proposal fulfills the burden of well-being. To answer the point anyway, cross apply the double bind of saying life is a status of well-being.
  • II. Pro says they have taken the well-being of the fetus into consideration because they called the fetus a parasite and claimed bodily autonomy. Cross apply where bodily autonomy was never warranted as to its relation with well-being, therefore doesn't really answer the point.
  • III. He says I don't weigh permanent damage, and I do. That's the whole point of the counter proposal. Also that source doesn't have anything about mental issues, so don't let my opponent fake sources."

  1. I’ll stop extending, whenever Con stops extending, literally we are both using the same point that carries over to each new section. 
  2. Extend previous answer
  3. I used that source to cover permanent damage, if you want one for specifically mental harm, here you go

B. 

  • “I. To say I never justify why life is important is to ignore the entire framework debate. Don't do that, and you'll know why chance at life is most important.
  • II. When it comes to mental health, there's two independent issues.
  • a. We can't track that prior to birth unless it's issues during pregnancy, which a psychiatrist could list as permanent harm, in which case, while I didn't bring it up directly, means I still somewhat solve it.
  • b. Cross apply the negative mental health effects of abortion as a reason that it goes both ways, meaning mental health is at worst a wash.
  • III. The purpose of this point is to prove that the counter proposal is better for both ethical frameworks, this point specifically talking about my own. It was a preempt to any arguments that I don't meet my own ethical framework.”

  1. Whenever I claim you haven’t justified it, doesn’t mean you never attempted to, it just means you failed. 
  2. No new sources to replace the bad ones, and apparently Con only solves “somewhat” by their own standard. 
  3. Literally every response is cross applied or extended here, therefore I extend all of my counters and defenses. 
  4. The reasons why I have a problem with Con’s counter proposals is because it does not totally fulfill your BoP, inherently, by One's own admission. 


C. 

  • “ Cross apply the whole point about why this fulfills my burden of proof. I do want to add that my opponent claims he said that abortion is unethical sometimes, but this was never made as a point. I haven't been able to find it, unless he's talking about a one off where he said it, in which case, I would argue he has to defend abortion in totality. He is saying the act of abortion is ethical. That's his burden of proof. If I find a situation where it isn't, then I win that I'm not convinced of Con's claim.”

  1. My opponent ignored the thing they said their proposal would prove for, not to mention that they continue to cross apply, therefore I will continue to extend my previous points. Recall: “Abortion is unethical in all cases except where the pregnant individual is at risk of permanent harm." It is their own goal posts which I claim do not meet Con’s BoP.


CC-2A-E


2A. 

  • “It's great you switched language, but your first speech is etched into this website forever. While it's great to make an effort going forward, this debate still has your transphobic rhetoric on it, so a simple switch doesn't solve the issue that everyone who has to judge this round or reads this round to get insight into abortion from our perspectives still has to feel excluded if they themselves are transgender or non-binary.”

  1. Almost a fair point, except for the fact where they ignore the second half of my argument, extend. Not to mention, it is still a red herring, as I do not use a proposal, and my argument is not dependent on any inherently transphobic principles. Thus, a non issue. 

2B. 

  • “ All I said was that the counter-proposal is an alternative that doesn't use transphobic rhetoric. If the impacts of this argument still constitute enough to weigh a victory for Con, then it should happen, with or without the counter proposal.

  1. This is Con basically saying, “All I said is that my argument doesn’t have X, regardless if X matters to the debate, if I convince the voters it convinces the voters” Except for the fact that that doesn’t justify the criticism. 

2C. 

  • “I specifically showed how it harms our educational value of abortion by no talking about a relevant group of people. To simply say "it's off topic" is the equivalent of justifying transphobic slurs. If my opponent had used harmful slurs for women (since his first speech used the gendered pronouns) throughout the entire first speech, and I called that out as an independent reason to vote Con, the answer "that's off topic" doesn't justify his use of sexism in this example. Similarly, him saying it's off topic shouldn't justify his transphobic rhetoric.”

  1. My point was that the entire section had nothing to do with the ethics of abortion, which is off topic and proves nothing. Obviously I wouldn’t advocate for transphobia or sexism, but the lack or presence of it does not prove one side or the other. 

2D. 

  • “He never answered the impact or the fact that he used transphobic language, meaning that if you feel that him switching doesn't solve and the dropped impacts about the well-being of transgender and non-binary people as well as the education in this round as well as the debate space as a whole and these impacts outweigh in the round, this is an independent reason to vote Con. Also extend that education and accessibility is the only real impact of debates like this, so anything that harms that has to outweigh, meaning I do outweigh Pro.”

  1. I explain why I never answered them, they do not regard the resolution nor the BoP either debater has to fulfil and is therefore a non issue. This is like bringing up that Darwin was racist to argue why you should disagree with Evolution. Fallacious. 

2E. 

  • “If you don't feel that it is fair to vote Con on an argument about rhetoric because it's too off topic, then I have an alternative. Give me the conduct point, and if you were already going to do that because of the forfeitures of my opponent, give me the grammar point instead of making it a tie. If you don't think my opponent's transphobia is an inherent reason to vote Con, don't let him get off scot free either. Give some amount of points to Con to show disapproval of transphobic language. His argument about solving it later doesn't change the fact that his rhetoric is etched into this site and debate forever now, so allow votes against it to show as well.” 

  1. This is just repeated flawed reasoning from the above sections, your argument does not apply. It is a non issue, cross apply all of my points. 


CC-3A-C


3A. 


  1. Note that if you were to check out Con’s first source there is no actual study proving their statistics, it is claimed without backup. Yet sentences before and after that have independent sourcing? This is clearly because this specific article does not have the study. My point before was that my opponent has to prove that, in general, abortion is used a tool of ablesm, and the proof just isn’t here. The same I said of Iceland would apply to the UK, except more because the statistics are cherry picked from certain countries there. If they wanted to claim that if Abortion at all did abliesm then it was a tool of such, then religion could also be called a tool of ablesim

3B. 

  • “His second answer is that since it's only an Icelandic thing, it's a non-issue. This is the equivalent of saying that since the Holocaust was only a Germany thing, it's a non-issue. He agreed it was an abortion in Iceland, but his justification is that it's ok because it's a small genocide. Extend when I first said that genocide is a direct reason to say chance at life is better than well being ethical framing, and the fact that my opponent tries to justify a genocide as small is proof enough.”

  1. I never agreed that because it’s a small genocide it doesn’t matter, I agreed that because it’s only iceland it doesn’t prove your point regarding abortion, extend from above. I agreed to the source, I disagreed with your interpretation of such. 


3C.

  • “ Extend that the genocide leads to worse well-being for all disabled because as their population decreases, there is less incentive to make their lives better. Even if I don't win it's a global phenomenon, I at least win it's happening in the US, UK, and Iceland.”

  1. Extend all previous points, this is a non-sequitur


Pro’s Case [Cross Applying Everything]


Con lists a summation of my points, and proves one counter to each, I shall address these counters now, PC A-D.

A. 

  • “ I would argue that the human rights statute is unethical because it doesn't give a shot at life for all. Cross apply my whole entire ethical framework why that's bad. He just says that the human rights statute has led to pragmatic good, but this is all about the ethical justification. Also, fetuses are human as they grow into a full adult human.”

  1. I would then extend why their counter does not apply, and answer their criticism as such: then a sperm is a human because they can grow into once, an egg is a human because they can grow into a human. Extend my refutation to potential life from before.

B/C. 

These two use the same reasoning (exactly Con extended B into C)

  • “B. His only argument is that I use old arguments. These arguments are cross applied. If they apply here, then they need to be answered here. Extend the original warrant that my opponent can't call a fetus a separate organism but also a part of the pregnant individual bodies.
  • C. Same thing as before. Extend that the damage done to human rights is not worth the tradeoff.”

  1. This is literally all regarding old issues I have already refuted, therefore extending my refutations, that I did not in any way consider. As they never addressed my initial refutation. 
  2. Extend that Human rights have done massive good

D. 

  • “I'm not saying ignore all statutes of human rights, just this one. Rape, murder, slavery, genocide (like the one sponsored by Pro) are all bad. This part of the statute, however, is contradictory, patriarchal, and violates my ethical framework and therefore should be ignored. My opponent has yet to justify why this specific part of the statute is ethical, so it shouldn't be weighed.” 

  1. Con never established a patriarchal refutation, and I have answered any perceived shortcomings, and dismantles Cons ethical framework. Therefore extend. It should indeed be weighed. 


Closing Statement


Con’s first refutation of my framework established where this debate would go, that along with the fact that their Proposal doesn’t completely fulfill their BoP? This debate would inherently be unfulfilled by Con.

Due to Con’s failure to justify any of their substantial criticisms or establish any of their own contentions non-fallisously, they have not fulfilled their BoP, that Abortion is not ethical. Whereas Pro has refuted all points effectively and established their own case. 

Therefore Pro has met their goal post and Con has not, I thank Ancap460 for their time and rhetoric, but I ask Voters to Vote Pro. 

Con
Forfeited