Instigator / Pro
4
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic

On Balance, Abortion Should Remain Legal

Status
Finished

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

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

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
7
1765
rating
44
debates
89.77%
won
Description
~ 129 / 5,000

This concerns worldwide policy.

"Should": benefits outweigh the negatives.

Con is for ban, with the exception of Maternal life.

Round 1
Pro
Thanks Chris.

Introduction

Abortion's strongest argument is that the woman has the right to her body. The autonomy is important, and it's difficult to say for sure when the baby becomes human, as life is a continuous process. As most abortions occur before 13 weeks, most cases it would seem clear that you are getting rid of something that is not completely human. Multiple sources agree on the lack of the consciousness (and especially unlikeliness of birth) that makes this human. Given the burden of the mother to serve as life support, it seems illogical that she should not be get rid of the baby, as she should have the choice to make. There is no suffering that the baby suffers under these conditions. With illegalized abortion, many women nevertheless conduct dangerous abortions, leading to many deaths and problems. This is common knowledge. As such there is a definitive benefit to keeping benefit legalized.

Is it Human Life, and deserves human rights?

Now, the central argument of con is likely on this idea of life at conception and thus deserving of same human rights to live. This is not entirely founded. The vague idea of the zygote and embryo (certain cells) being equivalent to actual living human beings are separated by countless steps of process and is difficult to justify. Perhaps Psychology Today best states why we value human rights so much, even over other animals rights: " It also argues that humans are a radically different kind of animal, one that is qualitatively different and thus exceptional and potentially justifiably worthy of special moral rights and protections. A fully functioning human is a unique being that has self-reflective awareness, an explicit sense of self-in-relation-to-other over time, and an awareness of right and wrong.... if self-reflective awareness and the capacity to justify is a key aspect of human exceptionalism, then it is immediately clear that a zygote or embryo is not a fully functioning person." So it's clear that at the very least, first trimester abortions can be founded as they are radically different from other types of abortions. 

Questions that Con should answer to clarify his case:
Q1: What precisely makes it so that all fetuses, or the majority, which are aborted, deserve the same rights as fully functioning baby?
Q2: Why don't the parents' authority and status give them ability to control over the first few weeks of conception?
Q3: If the fetus does have rights, shouldn't we reduce suffering if they are disabled, physically or mental? Keep in mind, that the earlier you abort, the more of a case you can make, rather than forcing them through an entire life of problems.
Q4: What punishment does con believe in, if abortion should be a crime? Life sentence? Imprisonment? No punishment? The first two have horrible implications, especially on the woman's future in society, while the third contradicts con's case...
Q5: Since con did not negate rape, what about those cases? Surely the woman isn't at fault here, and shouldn't be forced to give birth.
Q6: what about human cloning? Do you believe in supporting the stem cells' rights? What if we use brain cells instead? What happens?

Con
Thanks, Seldiora.

RESOLVED: On Balance, Abortion Should Remain Legal

OBSERVATIONS:

  • RECALL from the description: “Con is for ban, with the exception of Maternal life.”
  • This debate is not to assess whether it is likely or possible that abortion will be banned worldwide with the exception of maternal life, nor does it concern what the penalties under international or national law will be if the hypothetical ban is broken. Lastly, it does not concern whether or not the ban will be properly enforced at all. It is only concerned with why, or why not a ban should happen. 
  • As every formal debate event CON has participated in has not factored CX into assigning arguments points, CON says CX should be treated as a supplemental chance for the sides to interrogate each other, and nothing more. Ultimately, CX should not be a factor when deciding the winner. This is also supported by the fact that DART has no established voter policies regarding the judging of CX, even in the Extended Policies and Interpretations
CONSTRUCTIVE:

CONTENTION 1: THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE (FOR REAL THIS TIME)

Those in favor of abortion assert there is a difference between being a human being and being a human person. The human being is simply a member of the species Homo sapiens, but personhood is based on other qualities that are developed over time. This is how, despite abortion objectively and irrefutably killing a human being, Pro-Choice advocates can still manage to justify the practice. They say killing a human being is fine, as long as it is not a human person. 
 
However, using the Pro-Choice’s own line of reasoning, the uncertainty principle states that there are 4 potential possibilities of abortion:
 
1. The fetus is a person, and that is known. 
2. The fetus is a person, but it is unknown.
3. The fetus is not a person, and that is known.
4. The fetus is not a person, and that is unknown
 
There are ramifications to each:
 
1. You have committed brazen homicide.
2. You have committed manslaughter
3. You have done nothing wrong.
4. You have committed criminal negligence. 
 
In 3/4ths of scenarios, the abortion is not justified. 

However, 2/4ths of these scenarios are impossible. No one can say with absolute certainty that abortion does not kill a human person. At best, someone can be strongly convinced that it does not, but they have no capacity to prove so. 

Indeed, the BoP is not on CON to show that abortion definitely does kill a person, it is on PRO to demonstrate that it definitely does not do so. And, as previously established, that is impossible. This throws out options 1 & 3, along with the only justifiable abortion scenario, leaving only unjustifiable scenarios. 

CONTENTION 2: HUMAN BEING vs PERSONHOOD

Because the Pro-Choice metrics of defining personhood are indistinct and immeasurable, the voter should prefer the objective Pro-Life standard: “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.”

Under this standard, the abortion debate is instantly settled. Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that the fetus is a human being at conception.

As Princeton cites:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

If that were not enough, within 8 weeks (easily within the first trimester), Abort73 finds:
“By the eighth week of pregnancy, every organ is present and in place. The embryonic period is now over. Ninety percent of the structures found in an adult human being can be found in this tiny embryo (now called a fetus) which is only about an inch and a half long.”

Indeed, it is better to draw the line at killing a human being. If we did not, what else would be the metric we use to draw it? 

If PRO thinks personhood begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not people” under PRO’s logic and can be freely killed with no moral repercussion.

Additionally, science has demonstrated that the baby is capable of consciousness while still in the womb, it is only asleep due to its environment.  
“the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later... many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place.”

If PRO thinks life begins with the “ability to respond to stimuli,” we run into the same logical blunders: what about people in a vegetative state? 

The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.

Maybe PRO thinks it is “viability,” that is also nonsensical. Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than a human person? 

Notably, fetuses become “viable” as early as 23 weeks.

CONTENTION 3: THE IMPACTS

The impacts of the last two contentions are twofold: the massive loss of human life and incomprehensible economic harm.

A. DEATH

We have already unjustly killed 32,695,106 people this year alone at the time of this writing. You can see this number go up here

Indeed, According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.”

This places abortion as the highest cause of death in the world by far, over 4 times higher than the previous highest cause. 

Notably, even if PRO could somehow prove that only 1% of abortions were unjust killings, it would still equate to a massive toll of 40,000,000 people dead by 2100 (meaning 500,000 people per year).

B. ECONOMICS

Abortions kill people who would have contributed to the world economy as consumers and job creators. Let’s do some math to figure out how much is roughly being lost monetarily due to abortion (of course, assuming current rates stay constant.)

In 2016, the average individual contributed $14,574 to the world economy. Let’s assume that those who were aborted started contributing like this when they turned 18 and lived until the life expectancy of the world at 72.

That’s 54 years of contribution X 14,574 which equals $786,996 per person for lifetime economic contribution. 

Multiply this number times 32,695,106, and you get a whopping $25,730,918,000,000 lost over 54 years in the world economy. And this is using 2020’s abortion deaths alone. 

Let’s calculate how much is lost in the world economy by 2100, then. It is 80 years until 2100, so multiplying that times the yearly death rate given by the WHO should tell us how many abortions will happen by 2100. 

80 X 50 million is 4,000,000,000 people dead by 2100 (yikes). 

4,000,000,000 X 786,996 is a moderate $3,147,984,000,000,000. 

REFUTATIONS:

“Abortion's strongest argument is that the woman has the right to her body. The autonomy is important, and it's difficult to say for sure when the baby becomes human, as life is a continuous process.”

  • PRO immediately concedes CON’s first contention.
  • The fetus is inherently not an extension of the woman’s body.
This is proven on four fronts:

1. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different from the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
2. The fetus is a genetically distinct being from conception.
3. The fetus drives its own development independently.
4. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

“Multiple sources agree on the lack of the consciousness (and especially unlikeliness of birth) that makes this human. Given the burden of the mother to serve as life support, it seems illogical that she should not be get rid of the baby, as she should have the choice to make.”

  • RECALL & EXTEND all responses from CONTENTION 2. 
  • The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood. It is immoral to kill someone over inconvenience. 
  • On that note, PRO’s logic endorses the free killing of those on life support. 
  • Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot. 
“There is no suffering that the baby suffers under these conditions.”

RECALL: The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.”

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

To put the reality mildly, the suction tears the body of the fetus apart and suctions the pieces through the tube

According to a NY Times article interviewing Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center: “...I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.”

“With illegalized abortion, many women nevertheless conduct dangerous abortions, leading to many deaths and problems. This is common knowledge. As such there is a definitive benefit to keeping benefit legalized.”

  • CON argues that this objection does not resolve any moral objections to abortion.
  • Additionally, banning abortion would deter women from having one because most women are law-abiding. It would also incentivize more use of abstinence, preventative birth control and orphanages to deter the need for abortion.
  • Planned Parenthood itself refutes this argument.
“Mary Calderon, former director of Planned Parenthood, estimated in a July 1960 article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. She writes the following:
Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, In 1951 there were only 15; and , while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is...abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous.”

  • Lastly, OUTWEIGH on the basis on CON’s 3rd Contention. 
“Now, the central argument of con is likely on this idea of life at conception and thus deserving of same human rights to live. This is not entirely founded. The vague idea of the zygote and embryo (certain cells) being equivalent to actual living human beings are separated by countless steps of process and is difficult to justify.”

  • RECALL & EXTEND both of CON’s 1st & 2nd Contentions.
  • The central argument of CON is not that “life” begins at conception, that is a truism. The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.”
  • The fetus is a human being at conception. That is indisputable, and not at all “vague” or filled with “countless steps.” In order to be a human being, the thing in question simply must be a member of Homo sapiens
“Perhaps Psychology Today best states why we value human rights so much, even over other animals rights: " It also argues that humans are a radically different kind of animal, one that is qualitatively different and thus exceptional and potentially justifiably worthy of special moral rights and protections. A fully functioning human is a unique being that has self-reflective awareness, an explicit sense of self-in-relation-to-other over time, and an awareness of right and wrong.... if self-reflective awareness and the capacity to justify is a key aspect of human exceptionalism, then it is immediately clear that a zygote or embryo is not a fully functioning person." 

  • RECALL & EXTEND both of CON’s 1st & 2nd Contentions.
  • This excerpt is the trademark “Human Being vs. Human Person” argument that CON has immediately refuted in Contentions 1 & 2.
“So it's clear that at the very least, first trimester abortions can be founded as they are radically different from other types of abortions.”

  • RECALL: Within 8 weeks (easily within the first trimester), Abort73 finds:
“By the eighth week of pregnancy, every organ is present and in place. The embryonic period is now over. Ninety percent of the structures found in an adult human being can be found in this tiny embryo (now called a fetus) which is only about an inch and a half long.”

  • RECALL: Notably, even if PRO could somehow prove that only 1% of abortions were unjust killings, it would still equate to a massive toll of 40,000,000 people dead by 2100 (meaning 500,000 people per year).”
  • RECALL: The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.”
  • RECALL & EXTEND CON’s 1st & 2nd Contentions.
CX:

PRO asks: “What precisely makes it so that all fetuses, or the majority, which are aborted, deserve the same rights as fully functioning baby?”

This is a fallacious question. Obviously, full civil rights are not afforded to individuals until they become full fledged adult citizens of their respective countries (including babies). However, fetuses still retain natural rights (rights that transcend government): life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

Abortion violates the 1st and most important natural right.

PRO asks: “Why don't the parents' authority and status give them ability to control over the first few weeks of conception?”

If the government’s authority is not enough to override natural rights, then the authority of parents are not enough either.

PRO asks: “If the fetus does have rights, shouldn't we reduce suffering if they are disabled, physically or mental? Keep in mind, that the earlier you abort, the more of a case you can make, rather than forcing them through an entire life of problems.”

As you have admitted, life is a continuous process. If this is the case, why stop preventing the suffering at birth? Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?

Hopefully you will see CON’s point. Furthermore, who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living?

PRO asks: “What punishment does con believe in, if abortion should be a crime? Life sentence? Imprisonment? No punishment? The first two have horrible implications, especially on the woman's future in society, while the third contradicts con's case…”

CON has already addressed why this question is irrelevant. 

But, I’ll bite using my own personal view: I do not support ex post facto punishment (i.e. punishing the women and doctors who have already had/performed abortions). I would instead only punish those who had/performed one from the time the law was implemented (remember, with the exception of maternal life, overseen by the state). Most likely, I would treat the situation like we treat manslaughter in courts. 

And doing this is entirely justified. It is actually a good impact to have some form of justice for the murdered, is it not? 

PRO asks: “Since con did not negate rape, what about those cases? Surely the woman isn't at fault here, and shouldn't be forced to give birth.”

No, the woman is not at fault. But neither is the baby. Do you know who IS at fault? The person who raped her. Hold them accountable, prosecute them by law, but do not kill someone for something they had no part in. Two wrongs do not make a right.

PRO asks: “what about human cloning? Do you believe in supporting the stem cells' rights? What if we use brain cells instead? What happens?”

This point is moot. Scientists won’t use brain cells because they don’t meet the purpose of stem cells. And stem cells are not taken from a developing baby, instead “These are eggs that have been fertilized in the laboratory but have not been implanted in a womb.”

As for cloning, I’d say I’m generally opposed.

CONCLUSION:

The central argument of CON is not that “life” begins at conception, that is a truism. The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot. 

Back to you, Seldiora.


Round 2
Pro
 1. UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE 

Objection! Con must not only prove that they are a person, but a person with fully deserved rights. There has been much contention about whether human can or cannot lose rights in itself, with the general law setting the standard: criminals having their liberty taken away when proven guilty, despite the constitution's "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". When a human infringes upon another humans' right, then they are punished as a result. This is the prime set of standard, and this links into the lack of autonomy provided when a woman has a children. As the baby limits the woman's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness (as it may force her into poverty to support the child), this is a clear violation of the constitution, and arguably proves the baby is not a person with fully deserved rights.

Therefore, con's revised argument is: 

1. The fetus is a person with rights, and that is known. 
2. The fetus is a person with rights, but it is unknown.
3. The fetus is not a person with rights, and that is known.
4. The fetus is not a person with rights, and that is unknown

He has not proved that he can discard all the justifiable arguments here.


2) HUMAN BEING vs PERSONHOOD

If PRO thinks personhood begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not people” under PRO’s logic and can be freely killed with no moral repercussion.
CORRECT! I will immediately draw from the scholarly article I held in reserves to prove this point. 

*ahem* to Paraphrase the arguments shortly, the researchers say: "Empirical data support the view presented in Holland (2010) that the ontological state of permanently vegetative patients is unclear: they are neither straightforwardly alive nor straightforwardly dead. Some relatives and experts take the view that the least worst option in this situation would be to shift patients from their currently unclear ontological state to that of being clearly dead. But many are concerned, or even horrified, by the prospect of the only legally sanctioned method guaranteed to achieve this, namely withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. Our analysis supports the case for debating a policy of allowing active euthanasia for PermVS patients (subject to all the sort of safeguards that are now or will be in the future put in place for allowing their deaths from treatment withdrawal). "

Con keeps asserting that because it can be a person, it is a person, but the potential is just not there. I have a hard time finding actual birth figures, but from IVF procedures, "21.3 percent: The chance of having a full term, normal birth weight and singleton live birth per ART cycle using fresh embryos from nondonor eggs is 21.3 percent for women younger than 35, according to SART’s 2015 report". If con is correct in that merely potential can be a person, that means we should charge everyone for manslaughter every nine months they are not having a child (because what could have been a child, was not. The "child" was "killed" through inaction.). This is incredibly problematic and leads to a worldwide apocalypse where either we have half the population reproducing and draining resources, or people are put in jail or even sentenced to death depending on how severe the manslaughter charge is. This is simply impossible of a world to live in.

 3: THE IMPACTS

A. Oho? And con would rather 40 million people be born every year, according to his logic? Already (master's thesis, wow!), "Food scarcity and shortage of water as well as lack of job opportunities and inadequate education are the results of global inequality. Uneven distribution of natural resources, financial means, and individual rights give rise to poverty and define the global culture as greedy, despite the aid of international organizations and agencies. Solutions to overpopulation lie in the efforts of national institutions to implement policies that will correspond to the guidelines given by v international institutions that work for the best of the global community. Within this global network, individuals act in their best interest, leaving the rest in extreme poverty and shortage. The inequality supports issues that contribute to overpopulation and leads to a humanity’s extinction". So. It's either 40,000,000 dead , or all 7 billion people+40 mill dead (or immensely suffering). I wonder just which is more severe?

B. The US Spends $11,000 on healthcare per person per year. Using con's same ideas (however, healthcare has to be offered all the way from birth, unlike working for the government), we spend $11,000*72= $792000. Ouch. That doesn't outweigh the $786,996 gain. No wonder the US is in trillions of dollars of debt. NEGATED.

REFUTATIONS

It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives.
What? Show me one source that tells me that I can kill the mother and the fetus will be fine.
 
I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.”
The professor says after 20 weeks of development, which is the vast minority of choices.

 estimated in a July 1960 article from the American Journal of Public Health
Ok Mrs. 1960. You do you.

On a more serious note, the woman is talking about developed countries with access to all of the physicians. A more rigorous and backed study in 2000 says: "Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications. Unsafe abortion is thus a pressing issue. Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur. "

The fact that con is actually advocating for illegal abortion while still being safe contradicts the very point con is trying to make. 

CX

Abortion violates the 1st and most important natural right.
Addressed in point 1

 Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?
They have the right to suicide. That is not prohibited.

Most likely, I would treat the situation like we treat manslaughter in courts. 
Voters should bear this in mind as they continue reading into MisterChris's arguments. 

“These are eggs that have been fertilized in the laboratory but have not been implanted in a womb.”

As for cloning, I’d say I’m generally opposed.
Okay, so NOW what's the difference? If we're trusting that even week 8 is not acceptable, then we cannot even discard the cells which are being fertilized into a fetus (despite potential disabilities and problems)...

“To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” 
One potential justification is asked in my question, "what about disabled children, who may live an entire life of suffering?" If con does not address this, I shall turn this into a full fledged argument he will have to counter.

Conclusion: Con creates four ideas with missing information and so he must fulfill his new burden. Vegetable people have the right to die, even though it's ultimately the family that does it for them. The cost of the lives are outweighed by the cost of their living. Illegal abortion is incredibly dangerous and a horrible event that is problematic. Con has not negated that it is important for woman to have autonomy to her own body, that the relationship is basically slave/master or parasite/host. As such, abortion should be legalized.
Con
Thanks, Seldiora.

OBSERVATIONS:

  • PRO drops all of CON’s R1 observations. By extension, PRO concedes:
“RECALL from the description: “Con is for ban, with the exception of Maternal life.”

This debate is not to assess whether it is likely or possible that abortion will be banned worldwide with the exception of maternal life, nor does it concern what the penalties under international or national law will be if the hypothetical ban is broken. Lastly, it does not concern whether or not the ban will be properly enforced at all. It is only concerned with why, or why not a ban should happen. 

As every formal debate event CON has participated in has not factored CX into assigning arguments points, CON says CX should be treated as a supplemental chance for the sides to interrogate each other, and nothing more. Ultimately, CX should not be a factor when deciding the winner. This is also supported by the fact that DART has no established voter policies regarding the judging of CX, even in the Extended Policies and Interpretations.”
  • DROPPED/CONCEDED ARGUMENTS:
  1. 3/4 arguments CON gave against the fetus being part of the woman’s body. 
  2. All arguments CON gave concerning “it’s the mother’s choice”
  3. The fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. 
  4. banning abortion would deter women from having one because most women are law-abiding. It would also incentivize more use of abstinence, preventative birth control and orphanages to deter the need for abortion.
  5. All arguments refuting the idea that 1st trimester abortions are different from 2nd onward.
There are more, but these are some highlights.

  • This goes without saying, but the voter should prioritize lives over economics.
REFUTATIONS:

“1. UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE 
 
Objection! Con must not only prove that they are a person, but a person with fully deserved rights.”
PRO tries to shift BoP back onto with CON with no justification. 

In truth, PRO holds BoP, both because he is the instigator and because of the nature of abortion itself. 

If it is uncertain whether abortion kills a person (which PRO has already conceded to be true multiple times), then the Uncertainty Principle holds true: that there is currently no justifiable scenario for abortion.
 
RECALL & EXTEND: Indeed, the BoP is not on CON to show that abortion definitely does kill a person, it is on PRO to demonstrate that it definitely does not do so.”
 
Abort73 furthers:
“Uncertainty as to whether a building is occupied does not give an exterminator the right to fumigate. Uncertainty as to whether an overturned bassinet is empty does not give a truck driver the right to plough through it. Uncertainty as to whether a walk-in freezer has been vacated does not give a night manager the right to lock and bolt it. Uncertainty as to whether a high climber has moved to another tree does not give a lumberjack the right to fell the timber. And uncertainty over whether a person is really dead does not give a mortician the right to light the furnace. Personal conviction makes no difference. The absence of human life must be completely verified before any of these actions can take place.”
 
“There has been much contention about whether human can or cannot lose rights in itself, with the general law setting the standard: criminals having their liberty taken away when proven guilty, despite the constitution's "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". When a human infringes upon another humans' right, then they are punished as a result. This is the prime set of standard, and this links into the lack of autonomy provided when a woman has a children. As the baby limits the woman's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness (as it may force her into poverty to support the child), this is a clear violation of the constitution, and arguably proves the baby is not a person with fully deserved rights.”
PRO’s argument doesn’t work on any level whatsoever, it only comes across cold and callous as he compares an unborn child to a murderous criminal. If anyone is the criminal in this scenario, it is those doing the aborting. 

  • The right to life is the foremost natural right as it is the prerequisite for all others. The right of a baby to live is more fundamental than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. To take someone’s life under the warrant that “my liberty and pursuit of happiness are being impeded” it is unjust and blatant homicide. Additionally, RECALL: The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood. It is immoral to kill someone over inconvenience.”
  • Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white. Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death. For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response). On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances. My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre). These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws). The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child (and once again I will remind the voter that the woman chooses to have the child of her own accord in the vast majority of cases), and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.
“2) HUMAN BEING vs PERSONHOOD
If PRO thinks personhood begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not people” under PRO’s logic and can be freely killed with no moral repercussion.
CORRECT! I will immediately draw from the scholarly article I held in reserves to prove this point. “
 
PRO unwisely embraces the cold and callous argument that those in a vegetable state, severely developmentally handicapped or suffering severe brain damage can be killed freely with no moral repercussion. 
 
*ahem* to Paraphrase the arguments shortly, the researchers say: "Empirical data support the view presented in Holland (2010) that the ontological state of permanently vegetative patients is unclear: they are neither straightforwardly alive nor straightforwardly dead. Some relatives and experts take the view that the least worst option in this situation would be to shift patients from their currently unclear ontological state to that of being clearly dead. But many are concerned, or even horrified, by the prospect of the only legally sanctioned method guaranteed to achieve this, namely withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. Our analysis supports the case for debating a policy of allowing active euthanasia for PermVS patients (subject to all the sort of safeguards that are now or will be in the future put in place for allowing their deaths from treatment withdrawal).”
  • PRO says that those in a permanent vegetative state (a small portion of cases) are not people, therefore anyone in a vegetative state (permanent or not), severely developmentally handicapped or suffering severe brain damage can be killed freely with no moral repercussion. Even if PRO’s original premise that those in a permanent vegetative state are not people were bought, the conclusion does not follow. Abortion kills unconscious beings that will definitely become conscious otherwise. This is like killing someone in a coma who is definitely going to come out of it. 
  • Even if the voter somehow buys PRO’s point here, RECALL & EXTEND CON’s Contention 1: “Indeed, the BoP is not on CON to show that abortion definitely does kill a person, it is on PRO to demonstrate that it definitely does not do so. And, as previously established, that is impossible. This throws out options 1 & 3, along with the only justifiable abortion scenario, leaving only unjustifiable scenarios.”
“Con keeps asserting that because it can be a person, it is a person, but the potential is just not there.”
Not sure where PRO is getting this from. 

Once again, CON will restate their thesis: “The central argument of CON is not that “life” begins at conception, that is a truism. The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” 

“I have a hard time finding actual birth figures, but from IVF procedures, "21.3 percent: The chance of having a full term, normal birth weight and singleton live birth per ART cycle using fresh embryos from nondonor eggs is 21.3 percent for women younger than 35, according to SART’s 2015 report.” 
  • CON struggles to see the relevance of figures such as this. Some pregnancies fail, therefore it is okay for me to kill my child? That logic does not work.
  • Even if the voter can somehow see relevancy in such figures, consider that this is specifically talking about IVF fertilization of women who are otherwise infertile. This should not be extrapolated to be a pregnancy success rate for the general population.
“During IVF, a woman’s ovulatory process is monitored and stimulated before eggs are extracted from her ovaries and sperm are allowed to fertilize them in a laboratory. The fertilized eggs undergo embryo culture for two to six days and one or more is transferred into the woman's uterus, hopefully leading to a successful pregnancy.”

“If con is correct in that merely potential can be a person, that means we should charge everyone for manslaughter every nine months they are not having a child (because what could have been a child, was not. The "child" was "killed" through inaction.). This is incredibly problematic and leads to a worldwide apocalypse where either we have half the population reproducing and draining resources, or people are put in jail or even sentenced to death depending on how severe the manslaughter charge is. This is simply impossible of a world to live in."
There is no relevance to this point whatsoever. Once again, CON rejects the differentiation between people and Homo sapiens and says they are one in the same. In other words, the fetus never was not a person. CON also never argued that potential itself = personhood. That is nonsensical. Potential as a concept is abstract, therefore it cannot be a person itself. Lost potential helps justify the argument that the fetus is a person, but potential itself can not be a person. 

Regarding “killing through inaction,” 
to quote our previous debate: “PRO presents a nonsensical refutation here. What about abortion is inaction? What about banning abortion is punishing inaction? Abortion is an action that kills real fetuses, demonstrated to be persons created by choice by people.This is not a “hypothetical loss of money and life,” by killing our young before they are even born we are literally flushing money and morality down the drain. And no, CON is not advocating to have wild sex as often as possible. CON is simply arguing to not vacuum your baby out of your womb.”

3: THE IMPACTS
 
A. Oho? And con would rather 40 million people be born every year, according to his logic? Already (master's thesis, wow!), "Food scarcity and shortage of water as well as lack of job opportunities and inadequate education are the results of global inequality. Uneven distribution of natural resources, financial means, and individual rights give rise to poverty and define the global culture as greedy, despite the aid of international organizations and agencies. Solutions to overpopulation lie in the efforts of national institutions to implement policies that will correspond to the guidelines given by v international institutions that work for the best of the global community. Within this global network, individuals act in their best interest, leaving the rest in extreme poverty and shortage. The inequality supports issues that contribute to overpopulation and leads to a humanity’s extinction". So. It's either 40,000,000 dead , or all 7 billion people+40 mill dead (or immensely suffering). I wonder just which is more severe?”
  • Off tops, reading the source reveals it is a master’s thesis for a Master of Arts in Liberal Studies… We shouldn’t just take this guy’s word for it unless we carry along a fat bucket of salt. Liberal studies is too broad of a degree to qualify him as any authority on the matter, and a Master of Arts tends to ignore the more technical side of things. 
  • This argument is pure speculation. The actual facts disagree.
Food and water are more available than ever before, world economic growth is unprecedented as is education levels & capitalism has reduced world poverty by 86% in 36 years. Global inequality has been in recession since the 1990s, and as countries get richer their policies become more progressive, not less. Democracy is by far the dominant ideology and awareness for human rights is increasing, not decreasing. 

“So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).”

As for global warming, the very pro-science Vox provides a graph of emissions under various scenarios.

They find that population is literally the least influential factor in climate change. 

According to the article: “I show a daunting number of scenarios above, but they’re color-coded to make following them easier. The greenish lines show emissions under different population scenarios. The most steeply climbing line assumes only a modest decline in global fertility rates, while the lowest (green) scenario assumes a very rapid decline in total fertility rates — frankly, an unattainable decline. The teal line assumes that fertility rates in every country go directly to replacement rate in 2016 (down for most poor countries, up for rich ones), and stay there. The central green line assumes fertility declines in the future following the historic trend. As you can see from these crude extrapolations, fertility rates do have substantial long-run effects on emissions. But note those two gray lines. They’re important: They show where emissions need to go in order to prevent sharp rises in global temperatures. The paler of the two shows emissions required for less than 2 degree Celsius increase, broadly seen as the benchmark for a “serious” global warming solution. The darker gray line would get us down to a 2.5 to 2.7 degree increase, which is more or less what the Paris climate agreement committed participating countries to strive for. No amount of population control achieves those goals.”

Look at this graph. If population increases caused such dire outcomes, we would have seen signs of it by now. 

  • Even if the judge doesn’t buy any of this, consider that demographers actually predict global population will fall in the long run. 
According to Forbes, “demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”

B. The US Spends $11,000 on healthcare per person per year. Using con's same ideas (however, healthcare has to be offered all the way from birth, unlike working for the government), we spend $11,000*72= $792000. Ouch. That doesn't outweigh the $786,996 gain. No wonder the US is in trillions of dollars of debt. NEGATED.”

  • PRO isn’t understanding what the numbers CON used represent.
CON took the gross domestic product per capita and used it as a figure for how much the person contributes in terms of economic output (the total value of goods and services).

Vox says:
“Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the total value of final goods and services produced within a given country’s borders. It is the most popular method of measuring an economy’s output and is therefore considered a measure of the size of an economy. When people say one economy is larger than another or that an economy is growing or shrinking, usually they’re referring to GDP figures.
GDP is defined as all consumption by households, all investment by businesses, and all purchases by the government, plus purchases made by foreigners minus purchases of things made abroad.
So the cars the auto dealer sells, the money you pay to a day care center, your health insurance premiums — all of those are included in GDP.
Likewise, all of the investment in finished products involved in making those products — the machinery the auto manufacturer buys or the oven the restaurant purchases — those are counted, too. Business investment in inventories is counted as well. When a factory makes a lot of cars this year but doesn’t sell them until next year, the value of that production is counted in GDP for this year.
And when the government makes purchases, like buying fighter jets or paying contractors or buying food to serve at a White House state dinner, that’s a part of it, too.”

In other words, CON’s figures already include the amount the American government spends on healthcare… because guess who the government pays for healthcare? American businesses, and by extension American people! (In fact, over 78% of US gov debt is owed to Americans) This is why economists say the economy is driven by consumer spending. The only difference is that the consumers spend more than the government does, otherwise government spending would be the main driver of the economy.

  • CON will point out the obvious, this source only pertains to America. In fact, it says: “The United States spends significantly more on healthcare compared to other nations and such spending is expected to continue growing.” In other words, on balance, other nations are not spending nearly as much. 
“What? Show me one source that tells me that I can kill the mother and the fetus will be fine.”

You realize death during childbirth is a thing, right? There’s other ways of this happening too.

Gruesome fact: there is actually a crime called fetal abduction where some people have killed/kidnapped pregnant women in order to steal their children. 

Point is, if these two Homo sapiens are so obviously independent of one another, it follows that one does not have the right to kill the other intentionally.

“The professor says after 20 weeks of development, which is the vast minority of choices.”

RECALL: The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.”

This stimuli includes pain. Refuting your argument that it “feels nothing.” As for the professor, he said after 20 weeks the pain is “severe and excruciating.”
This might just come down to semantic preference, but CON does not believe we can extrapolate this to mean nothing is felt prior to 20 weeks. 
It is not as if pain receptors are not present within the baby until 20 weeks exactly and then suddenly the pain is excruciating… No, it makes more sense for the pain to increase as the weeks go by. 

Either way, if we are to qualify our right to kill by how much pain is felt, then I am able to kill you as long as you are put under a strong sedative. 

“Ok Mrs. 1960. You do you.”

The article being from 1960 does not hurt or hinder CON’s argument in any way. In fact, it strengthens it. In 1960, with healthcare technology so far behind today, even then it was considered a “safe procedure.” And in 1960, nearly all states labeled abortion as illegal. This means estimates from 1960 are a helpful, minified view of what illegal abortions would look like under a ban today, at least in the more developed nations.

“On a more serious note, the woman is talking about developed countries with access to all of the physicians. A more rigorous and backed study in 2000 says: "Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications. Unsafe abortion is thus a pressing issue. Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur. "

Several responses.
  • RECALL & EXTEND the first unrefuted argument: “CON argues that this objection does not resolve any moral objections to abortion.” Expanding on this: even if the voter bought that legalizing abortion would reduce unsafe abortion deaths by a notable amount, clearly the societal cost of mass murder in the form of abortion outweighs. 
  • RECALL & EXTEND the 2nd unrefuted argument: “Additionally, banning abortion would deter women from having one because most women are law-abiding. It would also incentivize more use of abstinence, preventative birth control and orphanages to deter the need for abortion.” PRO emphasizes that his source says legalizing abortion would reduce illegal abortion deaths, but in the same breath, his source agrees with CON that the same exact problem could be solved through contraceptives.
  • Moving onto the source itself, I want to emphasize how relatively small a number of 68,000 deaths is with over 20 million, objectively invasive procedures. If anything, this proves CON’s point. That’s a death rate of 0.34%. Less than half of the estimated overall surgery mortality rate
“The fact that con is actually advocating for illegal abortion while still being safe contradicts the very point con is trying to make.”

CON is absolutely NOT advocating for illegal abortion, in fact CON is strictly opposed to it as a principle. CON is simply saying the problem presented by PRO is overblown, and even if it weren’t, it would absolutely not outweigh CON’s presented points.  

CX:
 
RECALL & EXTEND: “As every formal debate event CON has participated in has not factored CX into assigning arguments points, CON says CX should be treated as a supplemental chance for the sides to interrogate each other, and nothing more. Ultimately, CX should not be a factor when deciding the winner. This is also supported by the fact that DART has no established voter policies regarding the judging of CX, even in the Extended Policies and Interpretations.”
 
Pro says: Addressed in point 1

CON unaddressed this in point 1… lol

Pro says: They have the right to suicide. That is not prohibited.
 
CON is going to pretend PRO didn’t just say this (Notably, suicide is done with consent. Homicide tends to be non-consensual) and will point back to what CON said last round:

“As you have admitted, life is a continuous process. If this is the case, why stop preventing the suffering at birth? Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?
 
Hopefully you will see CON’s point. Furthermore, who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living?”
 
Pro says: Voters should bear this in mind as they continue reading into MisterChris's arguments. 
 
PRO and CON both agree that CX is not to be directly influencing the assigning of argument points.
 
Pro says: Okay, so NOW what's the difference? If we're trusting that even week 8 is not acceptable, then we cannot even discard the cells which are being fertilized into a fetus (despite potential disabilities and problems)...
 
Weird enough, PRO is right on this one. Looking into it further, I wouldn’t say I’m supportive after all if the embryo is destroyed in the process. Thanks PRO for teaching me something new. 

Although, apparently there is a new way to cultivate stem cells without destroying the embryo.
"There is, however, a second method that creates embryonic stem cell lines without destroying the embryo. Instead, scientists take a single cell from a very early stage IVF embryo and can use that one cell to develop a new line. The process of removing one cell from an early stage embryo has been done for many years as a way of testing the embryo for genetic predisposition to diseases such as Tay Sachs. This process is called preimplantation genetic testing.”
 
If this method were used, CON would be supportive. 

Pro says: One potential justification is asked in my question, "what about disabled children, who may live an entire life of suffering?" If con does not address this, I shall turn this into a full fledged argument he will have to counter.

CON has already responded to this argument two-fold:

“As you have admitted, life is a continuous process. If this is the case, why stop preventing the suffering at birth? Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?
 
Hopefully you will see CON’s point. Furthermore, who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living?”
 
What level of suffering is PRO willing to live with? Where does he draw the line? Creating a genetically perfect race through selective killing is exactly what the Nazis tried to do. This is no different.

Abort73 furthers:

“Such a suggestion is barbaric and inhumane and has no place in a just society. There are children of all ages, and adults too, who are alive today and are living through all manner of disease and disability. Do these physical limitations make them less human? Is killing those who are sick really an acceptable way to treat sickness?
C. Everett Koop, who pioneered the field of pediatric surgery, points out that
"some of the most unhappy children have all of their physical and mental faculties, while some of the happiest youngsters have borne burdens which most of us would find very difficult to endure." 

He continues:
The most challenging aspect of children's surgery is the treatment of those congenital defects that are incompatible with life, but nevertheless can be corrected by the proper surgical procedure carried out shortly after birth… Of course there are problems in raising some of these children, and they may on occasion constitute a burden for the rest of the family. [I have performed] thousands of just such operations. No family has ever asked, "Why did you work so hard to save the life of my child?" No grown child or young adult has ever asked, "Why did you struggle so hard when you knew the outcome would not be perfect?"

CONCLUSION:

In response to CON’s arguments, PRO has adopted a barbaric, cold and callous position of dictating who deserves life and who deserves death, even going as far as to compare the unborn to homicidal criminals. CON has said this before, and will say it again: the right of the unborn to live outweighs your right to not be pregnant. 

Recalling CON’s conclusion from last round, it still holds strong:

“The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot.”

Back to you, Seldiora.

Round 3
Pro
Minor objection:
The fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. 
Euthanizing solves this problem.

That being said... Onto the big ideas!

1. Uncertainty
Very good, MisterChris, but you main argument has but one fatal flaw.

I will now bring out my own strongest refutation of MisterChris's argument, to thoroughly show that the option 3 is the correct one, that the fetus does not necessarily deserve the rights. MisterChris assumes the mother has taken responsibility; they have not. He assumes:

The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood
OBJECTION! A scholarly article states: "only a small proportion of abortions terminate intended pregnancies (8%)". Due to lack of access, lack of information available, or simply the fact that 98~99% is actually not a good number for contraceptives (if everyone on earth had sex with contraceptives, out of 3 billion women, 30 million women would still have the unintended pregnancy). So MisterChris's argument falls right here. I will also bring up a theoretical situation to make clear that the punishment to the woman is also completely absurd and nonsensical.

Say, the woman has a sister. They are obligated by family relation to take care of each other. But the woman, despite having a choice to drive a car herself, asks her sister to drive for her. She knows there is a risk of car crash, but she accepts it due to being very low. (Or maybe has no idea how dangerous car accidents can be, as in the case of unknowing mothers) Her sister gets into a car accident. Oh no. She was directly at fault. Now, the doctors say, you must provide blood for her for 9 months while being hooked up, and then, because she cannot work due to physical condition, you must then provide for her for 18 years worth. Do you see how absurd this idea is? Despite the fact they are family, despite the fact that the woman was indirectly responsible, the car accident itself was not 100% her fault, nor her choice.

To commit almost 19 years of lost of autonomy for one single mistake not due to the mother's fault, that is what con is arguing for. Con wants to say, yes, because they are family, because the woman made the choice to go for something risky that could lead to a dangerous result (her sister on life support, literally depending on the woman now), she cannot be forced to provide blood and nutrients for 9 months, followed by 18 years of monetary and housing compensation. Con says the punishment must match the crime, but sex in itself cannot be a crime, as I noted in my absurd hypothetical scenario above. In fact, if con agrees that whoever does not drive the car should lose their autonomy for 19 years, then nobody would ever go drive cars, as otherwise even the "2% low rate" would be inacceptable. 

Tell me, what obligation does the mother actually have to support the child, just due to having sex? Punishing people for lack of knowledge of contraceptives, or the 2% where the contraceptive failed, are both horrible implications. MisterChris assumes that the woman maliciously had sex unprotected, knowing fully that the risks were high, intended to get pregnant, and then tossed the fetus aside. But all three must be fulfilled in order for this argument to succeed. So unless Con defeats my Car Crash argument, he loses this debate! Remember, MisterChris must differentiate between letting die and killing, otherwise, he could be equally advocating the child suffering in a developing country where life is just as bad as death!

2) Human Being vs Personhood

  • CON struggles to see the relevance of figures such as this. Some pregnancies fail, therefore it is okay for me to kill my child? That logic does not work.
  • Even if the voter can somehow see relevancy in such figures, consider that this is specifically talking about IVF fertilization of women who are otherwise infertile. This should not be extrapolated to be a pregnancy success rate for the general population.
Ah... yes, I found it. The birth rate (11.6 per 1000 population). The logic, of course, works. If the pregnancy fails, then there is no child at all. Does that make sense? Look, if all pregnancies failed, obviously then it would be the same as abortion and we wouldn't even be having this debate. The higher the rate is, the more doubtful con's argument is. If we assume that pregnancy was 100% successful, then con would also vouch for women not to use condoms, because then the rate of having children would go down to 2%. Con's argument just doesn't work. Because he thinks, oh, this has 20% chance of succeeding, 10% of succeeding, despite this extreme low rate, because they can become children they are children, so we cannot risk it. By his logic, condoms have 2% of giving children, despite this low rate, they can become children. So now he is arguing against contraceptives as well, which is nonsensical. Let's go more concrete than "potential" then, and go on to sperms. What is the big difference, if con claims that at 8 weeks they already have everything they need? At the very beginning, the sperms alone contain DNA information...

3) Impacts

Nicely done, however, before I refute, I would like to note that the previous source I used also said "We find that the provision of medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to the infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies costs taxpayers $9.6–12.6 billion annually" . So we should also keep this mind against the economic gain con vouches for. 

Con says things are growing more stable, being better, but he does not consider the fact that the population is now stabilizing, and that is why the resource distribution is being resolved. Con's world advocates for more chaos and more problems thrown into the mix. Current statistics note:

The global extreme poverty rate fell to 9.2 percent in 2017, from 10.1 percent in 2015. That is equivalent to 689 million people living on less than $1.90 a day.  At higher poverty lines, 24.1 percent of the world lived on less than $3.20 a day and 43.6 percent on less than $5.50 a day in 2017. 
In 2018, four out of five people below the international poverty line lived in rural areas.
  • Half of the poor are children. Women represent a majority of the poor in most regions and among some age groups. About 70 percent of the global poor aged 15 and over have no schooling or only some basic education.
  • Almost half of poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa live in just five countries: Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Madagascar.
  • More than 40 percent of the global poor live in economies affected by fragility, conflict and violence, and that number is expected to rise to 67 percent in the next decade. Those economies have just 10 percent of the world’s population.
  • About 132 million of the global poor live in areas with high flood risk.
So yes, people are doing slightly better, but the rate is still not that great, and the overpopulation is definitely an issue. And con's contribution to overpopulation means many of those unaborted babies may die anyways, defeating his case. A recent research notes that Rwanda genocide may have been caused by carrying capacity reaching the limit:

Often, the carrying capacity of one region at one point in time is boosted by the appropriation of the carrying capacity from other people and even other generations. Such resources include oil, deep sea fish, and the stability of the global climate and ecological systems. But in Rwanda, the most densely populated country in Africa, the importation of such resources has long been limited. Unlike other densely populated countries such as Hong Kong and Holland, Rwanda's economy at the time of its most infamous genocide, in 1994, depended almost exclusively on its primary production [17]. The country had little industry, few exports, and little tourism. The price of its most important export, coffee, had declined steeply just before the genocide [18]. Unlike many Asian countries, Rwanda also received few remittances from Rwandans working as guest workers abroad [17].
Among the many different explanations for the horrific 1994 Rwandan genocide, the possibility of a Malthusian check (also called “demographic entrapment”) is scarcely mentioned [17,19]. A Malthusian check in Rwanda was plausible not only because the total population was too large, but perhaps more importantly because the rate of population growth in Rwanda was faster than the capacity of Rwandan society to process the additional people. As a result, many indicators of development went backwards. The limited agricultural capacity forced many young men into Kigali, causing a concentration of young men with few prospects other than what they might gain from violence.
There is even less scientific discussion that entertains the possibility that the sub-Saharan epidemic of HIV/ AIDS may also be a Malthusian check [19]. This is plausible if one applies a conceptual framework that combines the erosion of human carrying capacity through the same rapid population growth seen in Rwanda, with a consequent decline in per capita income and food supply. Furthermore, slowly operating feedbacks occurring as a result of the epidemic further undermined development, including the loss of human capital as teachers died [20], the loss of agricultural expertise as farmers died [21], and a deepening debt and loss of productivity from the countless funerals. And leaders in the developed world and many within Africa itself failed to devote the resources and provide the leadership required to quell the epidemic.

Unfortunately, Con cannot posit to solve all overpopulation problems, especially wars we have little ways of controlling or overseeing. And as resources become more available, we consume them quicker, which makes con's argument that much harder to make. 

About global warming, it isn't that a person is guaranteed to raise the temperature by an amount, but rather the industrialization, the needs to keep up with such amount of people, that is the actual problem. So more people means more products needed to be produce. Con's argument assumes that abortion is still legal...

According to Forbes“demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”

People are still going to have sex, but the "smaller families" becomes really hard to manage especially with the mentioned fact that a lot of times with abortion, women don't feel ready, don't have enough information, or the contraceptive goes through. If con's "potential lives" actually are born, Forbes' ideas are completely destroyed, as con assumes the 40 million people will actually be born by 2070, rather than the population decreasing.

Point is, if these two Homo sapiens are so obviously independent of one another, it follows that one does not have the right to kill the other intentionally.
If they are obviously independent, then I could potentially abort the baby and have it survive, thus destroying con's entire argument. It's entirely plausible this is merely due to physical limitations. (Hm... extracting the cells to duplicate via cloning... maybe that could work, if human cloning was legalized). Also... they are forcing the mother to give birth in order to kill the mother and keep the child alive, which is.... just as bad, or worse, than what con is going for. So his argument doesn't work. 

CX

What level of suffering is PRO willing to live with? Where does he draw the line? Creating a genetically perfect race through selective killing is exactly what the Nazis tried to do. This is no different.
Not quite, we are preventing disabled children from being born, and having trouble in real life. Though some can overcome their disabilities, we should do our best to ensure our children live the best lives, if they are born.

Bonus Question: Does con support incest? Because the main anti-incest argument is precisely this: we cannot allow them to have the potential to create children with severe diseases that die very early on in life.

Conclusion: Though I will admit the criminal analogy was off, the new analogy is perfect. Both are family, both know they had responsibility, and both had some idea what they were getting into, without perfect information (92% abortions are unintended). But when you state it in this manner, suddenly it seems absolutely insane to force the woman to be attached via bloodline to her sister, and have to support her for 18 years afterwards. So my argument still stands.
Con
Thanks, Seldiora.

OBSERVATIONS:

  • PRO drops and concedes CON’s R1 & R2 observations.
  • There are a multitude of dropped arguments. CON will point them out as the round progresses.
REFUTATIONS:

“Minor objection:
The fetus can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. 
Euthanizing solves this problem.
 
That being said... Onto the big ideas!”
 
Fetuses are not euthanized when aborted. 

Additionally, RECALL: “if we are to qualify our right to kill by how much pain is felt, then I am able to kill you as long as you are put under a strong sedative.” 

“1. Uncertainty
Very good, MisterChris, but you main argument has but one fatal flaw.
 
I will now bring out my own strongest refutation of MisterChris's argument, to thoroughly show that the option 3 is the correct one, that the fetus does not necessarily deserve the rights. MisterChris assumes the mother has taken responsibility; they have not. He assumes:
 
The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood”
Uhhh…. no.
 
  • The mother freely electing to have the child is an additional, merely supplementary point tacked onto CON’s main refutations of your arguments. By saying this, you are dropping & conceding CON’s main points:
a. “The right to life is the foremost natural right as it is the prerequisite for all others. The right of a baby to live is more fundamental than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. To take someone’s life under the warrant that “my liberty and pursuit of happiness are being impeded” it is unjust and blatant homicide.”
 
AND
 
b. “Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white. Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death. For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response). On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances. My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre). These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws). The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child… and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.”
 
  • PRO completely drops the fact that they have BoP to prove that we are certainly not killing people. On merit of this alone, the voters can extend CON’s 1st Contention, thereby automatically granting the CON victory. 
“OBJECTION! A scholarly article states: "only a small proportion of abortions terminate intended pregnancies (8%)".”
 
  • Even if this were flowed through on PRO’s behalf, this doesn’t actually do anything for PRO, as illustrated above. It was merely a supplemental point. 
  • The study is based on a singular survey in the US alone from 2002.
  • The pregnancy being unintentional is not an excuse on three fronts:
a. “The right of a baby to live is more fundamental than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. To take someone’s life under the warrant that “my liberty and pursuit of happiness are being impeded” it is unjust and blatant homicide.”
 
b. There are alternatives that are cheaper, effective, and don’t require killing your child: condom wearing, birth control, orphanages, simple abstinence etc.
 
c. There is an intrinsic responsibility for a mother to care for their child, even if it is unintentional. 
 
IEP furthers:
“when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. In the case of procreation, the child needs care. To fail to provide it is to allow harmful consequences to obtain. Since the agent is causally responsible for the existence of a child in need of care, then the agent is morally responsible to provide it. “
 
“Due to lack of access, lack of information available, or simply the fact that 98~99% is actually not a good number for contraceptives (if everyone on earth had sex with contraceptives, out of 3 billion women, 30 million women would still have the unintended pregnancy). So MisterChris's argument falls right here.”
  • RECALL: “The right of a baby to live is more fundamental than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. To take someone’s life under the warrant that “my liberty and pursuit of happiness are being impeded” it is unjust and blatant homicide.”
  • Contraceptives are only one means of many. The use of a condom + a contraceptive is a virtual guarantee of no child. If all else fails, simple abstinence will do the job. 
  • Even if THAT fails, orphanages can take unwanted children. 
  • And finally, even if NONE OF THE ABOVE works, voters should outweigh the lives of millions over the inconvenience of a few. There is literally no excuse for mass slaughter of babies just because they were “accidentally made.” 
“I will also bring up a theoretical situation to make clear that the punishment to the woman is also completely absurd and nonsensical…...”
 
There is so much wrong with this that CON sincerely is at a loss of where to begin.
 
  • Off tops, what a cold, heartless argument PRO makes. Seriously. WTF.
  • This metaphor falls harder than the stock market in 1929. Not only does having a child not restrict liberty NEARLY as much as PRO implies, but it actually enhances happiness for most people involved. Very few mothers actually regret having children, and even if they DID, it wouldn’t justify abortion in the slightest. 
Abort73 furthers:
“One of the historic mantras of the abortion industry goes like this: "Every Child a Wanted Child." It sounds noble enough, until you realize what their solution to unwantedness is. If a child isn't wanted, they argue, then it shouldn't be born. The problem, of course, is that if the child is already conceived, the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it. How do they justify such violence? Often by arguing that it is better for the child to be dead than for the child to be unwanted.
This is a bogus argument. It doesn't work for the simple fact that no one makes such an argument about children after birth…

If someone's right to life truly were established or removed based simply on their "wantedness," what would that mean for the homeless, the aged or the infirm? In the broadest sense, the whole discussion of "wantedness" ignores a substantial reality. Even if the biological parents want nothing to do with their offspring, there are families all over the nation waiting desperately to adopt a baby, families who are willing to adopt diseased babies of any race or ethnicity."

To boil it down once AGAIN: The right to life outweighs your right to not be pregnant!

  • RECALL & EXTEND: “Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white. Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death. For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response). On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances. My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre). These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws). The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child… and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.”

  • Mothers have an intrinsic responsibility to care for their children.
For one, when having sex, you do it with the knowledge you could potentially create a child. 

RECALL: IEP furthers:
“when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. In the case of procreation, the child needs care. To fail to provide it is to allow harmful consequences to obtain. Since the agent is causally responsible for the existence of a child in need of care, then the agent is morally responsible to provide it. “

Furthermore, it is in the best interest of humanity for parents to have an obligation to care for their children. 

  • Finally, PRO still does not refute the fact that they have BoP, which freely extends CON’s Contention 1.
2) Human Being vs Personhood

Ah... yes, I found it. The birth rate (11.6 per 1000 population). The logic, of course, works. If the pregnancy fails, then there is no child at all. Does that make sense? Look, if all pregnancies failed, obviously then it would be the same as abortion and we wouldn't even be having this debate….. By his logic, condoms have 2% of giving children, despite this low rate, they can become children. So now he is arguing against contraceptives as well, which is nonsensical. Let's go more concrete than "potential" then, and go on to sperms. What is the big difference, if con claims that at 8 weeks they already have everything they need? At the very beginning, the sperms alone contain DNA information…”
  • The birth rate measures births as a share of the total population. This does not reflect the total number of pregnancy failures there are, but even if it did, CON still doesn’t see any relevancy in this point whatsoever. Pregnancies failing does not equate to the dead fetus being any other species than human. As for how this relates to contraceptives and condoms, the whole point of both is to stop fertilization/conception… Neither of those kill a human after they are created (i.e. the reason that a sperm dying does not equate to a human dying is that it is a cell of the father. It contains no new genetic information).
  • The voter can extend CON’s 2nd Contention uncontested. 
“3) Impacts
 
Nicely done, however, before I refute, I would like to note that the previous source I used also said "We find that the provision of medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies and to the infants who are born as a result of such pregnancies costs taxpayers $9.6–12.6 billion annually" . So we should also keep this mind against the economic gain con vouches for.”
Once again, the taxes you pay, the money the government spends, all of it is included in GDP growth. Having a source of government income is not inherently bad.

 
“Con says things are growing more stable, being better, but he does not consider the fact that the population is now stabilizing, and that is why the resource distribution is being resolved. Con's world advocates for more chaos and more problems thrown into the mix.”

The population is doing anything but stabilizing. Even if it were, PRO would not be able to tell us how much of it was due to population stabilizing, or due to other factors (globalization, etc).

“The global extreme poverty rate fell to 9.2 percent in 2017, from 10.1 percent in 2015….
So yes, people are doing slightly better, but the rate is still not that great, and the overpopulation is definitely an issue.”
  • PRO contradicts themselves. Is the population stabilizing, or is population increasing? 
  • PRO says overpopulation is an issue despite the population clearly going up rapidly while poverty decreases.
  • PRO isolates a couple years to say the improvement is slight. Looking at a wider view, we see that world poverty has been reduced by 86% in 36 years.
“A recent research notes that Rwanda genocide may have been caused by carrying capacity reaching the limit”
  • Note that the study very clearly admits that there are a multitude of factors, and population is clearly not a large one.
“Among the many different explanations for the horrific 1994 Rwandan genocide, the possibility of a Malthusian check (also called “demographic entrapment”) is scarcely mentioned”

Really, internal politics and ethnic tensions played a far higher role.

“The genocide was sparked by the death of the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport on 6 April 1994.
A French judge has blamed current Rwandan President, Paul Kagame - at the time the leader of a Tutsi rebel group - and some of his close associates for carrying out the rocket attack.”
 
  • Rwanda is a singular nation. Even if the judge bought that somehow population single-handedly caused the Rwandan genocide, you can not extrapolate that to mean the entire world is going to face these problems when there is very clearly no overall correlation. 
“Unfortunately, Con cannot posit to solve all overpopulation problems, especially wars we have little ways of controlling or overseeing.”

There are certainly unique challenges to population growth, but PRO has yet to demonstrate that anything they present outweighs over 40 million deaths yearly, nor have they actually demonstrated any materialization of their impacts.

“About global warming, it isn't that a person is guaranteed to raise the temperature by an amount, but rather the industrialization, the needs to keep up with such amount of people, that is the actual problem. So more people means more products needed to be produce. Con's argument assumes that abortion is still legal…”
That is precisely what the population metric measures. CON’s population metric also shares scenarios where population growth far outpaces current rates. CON’s point stands unrefuted.
 
“People are still going to have sex, but the "smaller families" becomes really hard to manage especially with the mentioned fact that a lot of times with abortion, women don't feel ready, don't have enough information, or the contraceptive goes through. If con's "potential lives" actually are born, Forbes' ideas are completely destroyed, as con assumes the 40 million people will actually be born by 2070, rather than the population decreasing.” 
PRO ignores the literal litany of other options: 

“Contraceptives are only one means of many. The use of a condom + a contraceptive is a virtual guarantee of no child. If all else fails, simple abstinence will do the job. 
 
Even if THAT fails, orphanages can take unwanted children.”
 
“If they are obviously independent, then I could potentially abort the baby and have it survive, thus destroying con's entire argument. It's entirely plausible this is merely due to physical limitations. (Hm... extracting the cells to duplicate via cloning... maybe that could work, if human cloning was legalized). Also... they are forcing the mother to give birth in order to kill the mother and keep the child alive, which is.... just as bad, or worse, than what con is going for. So his argument doesn't work.”
Yes, you could take the baby from the womb and it would survive.. with proper care. But that is not abortion. Abortion is destroying the fetus.

Expanding on the care point, though… Born babies need care as well, too, as do small children. Do we consider them less than human because of the need for care? What about elders in nursing homes? We can freely gun them down because they are reliant on others?

Also, uh, I think it’s pretty obvious CON wasn’t actually advocating for fetal abduction. 

NOTE: PRO drops the illegal abortion argument entirely. Extend in favor of CON. 
 

CX:

RECALL & EXTEND: “As every formal debate event CON has participated in has not factored CX into assigning arguments points, CON says CX should be treated as a supplemental chance for the sides to interrogate each other, and nothing more. Ultimately, CX should not be a factor when deciding the winner. This is also supported by the fact that DART has no established voter policies regarding the judging of CX, even in the Extended Policies and Interpretations.”
 
PRO says: “Not quite, we are preventing disabled children from being born, and having trouble in real life. Though some can overcome their disabilities, we should do our best to ensure our children live the best lives, if they are born.”
 
PRO misses the point. “Preventing people from being born” is killing someone who already exists… i.e. homicide.

PRO concedes that many people can overcome disabilities and have happy lives, meaning an instant CON win on this point.

RECALL: who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living?

Pro asks: “Bonus Question: Does con support incest? Because the main anti-incest argument is precisely this: we cannot allow them to have the potential to create children with severe diseases that die very early on in life.”
CON is not pro-incest. The idea of discouraging incest is to mitigate family members having sex with each other in the first place, and CON doesn’t believe this requires any more elaboration.

CONCLUSION:

PRO drops a litany of points, and through these dropped points alone CON earns the win. But delving further, PRO’s argument of dictating who deserves to live is directly comparable to the work of the Nazis, and should not be supported. Additionally, PRO’s attempts to push overpopulation falter repeatedly, and he drops his illegal abortion argument entirely. 

Once again, recalling CON’s conclusion from R1, it still holds strong:
 
“The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot.”
 
Back to you, Seldiora.





Round 4
Pro
Con’s profile pic would say, GO BEYOND, PLUS ULTRA! As the debate draws to its 4th round, I would like to make the framework and the judging impact clear. This round will be phrased in a way similar to constructive but cutting directly into Con’s arguments.

Firstly, I can drop all of Con’s original third argument (impacts). I am saying this here because this argument directly negates it. Why? Because Con’s economic impacts are “means to an end” which he does not desire. He is only talking about government gain of money [“contributed $14,574 to the world economy”]. No matter how much money the government can gain, if we violate the persons’ rights and personal liberties, people are suffering, and we cannot measure finance against this. Otherwise, we could justify the government oppressing us all as slaves to the net massive financial benefit, not paying us, and merely giving us resources to live, a horrible dystopian future no one wants to live in. 

Even if it was another person’s gain of money, this still wouldn’t work as money could be funneled from the poor to the rich even more. Only those with businesses can provide services, and the extra child drains extra resources. The disparity growing contributes further to the poverty resulting from banning abortion.

Con says:

a. “The right to life is the foremost natural right as it is the prerequisite for all others. The right of a baby to live is more fundamental than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. To take someone’s life under the warrant that “my liberty and pursuit of happiness are being impeded” it is unjust and blatant homicide.”
 
AND
 
b. “Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white. Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death. For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response). On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances. My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre). These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws). The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child… and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.”
 I will get to whether the fetus is ACTUALLY a person or not later, for now, I will heap upon additional reasoning why it may be wise to delay the potential birth of the child. If Con's "potential of the fetus" argument works, then my logic can still stand, as a fetus sacrificed now compared to a fetus ten years later will still be netting one actual life saved, in exchange for one potential life filled with unnecessary suffering from parent and child.

Counter Arg: Additional Suffering From Above, Clarified

I have repeatedly stressed the potentially poor future stemmed from forced childbirth, but MisterChrist refuses to acknowledge this possibility. Here I will re-highlight just how bad Con’s world is.

Consider that women denied abortion have worse lives, which also contributes to their children living worse lives. “Women who had given birth also reported increasing rates of chronic joint pain and headaches – 15 and 23 percent by end of the five-year study period – compared to women who had first-trimester abortions (12 and 18 percent) and second-trimester abortions (8 and 17 percent).”

Another article supports this idea (except in financial matters): “The inability to control the timing and circumstances of birth affect the children born. Women are much more likely to report poor maternal bonding, such as feeling trapped as a mother or resenting their baby, with the child born after abortion denial than with the next child born after receiving an abortion (9% vs 3%). This may be a consequence of economic hardship and the circumstances that led the woman to want an abortion in the first place. Children born as the result of abortion denial are more likely to live below the federal poverty level (63% vs 55%), an average of 101% vs 132% of federal poverty level among children born subsequently to women who were able to receive an abortion.”

Not to mention my “potentially disabled children from incest” argument. Look, I’m not saying a specific race is better, or hair color, or any of the traits that all humans possess. But losing an arm is definitively detrimental to life, and being blind loses an entire sense. Or living under minimum wage compared to living in a middle-class environment. We can predict the disabled, especially in the theoretical scenario the incest couple gets pregnant. We can help poor children, in the case of developing countries, where the majority of abortions are prohibited. Then we can stop the potential suffering or lack of fulfilling life due to disease and deformities. 

So, I ask voters to ignore the entirety of Con’s economic impact, as it is negated by our liberties taking precedence, and future suffering outweighing this.

2. Personhood vs human right

Con has only said this to counter potential further arguments, dropping the vegetative one by merely noting it as clinical, not as completely invalid.

The birth rate measures births as a share of the total population. This does not reflect the total number of pregnancy failures there are, but even if it did, CON still doesn’t see any relevancy in this point whatsoever. Pregnancies failing does not equate to the dead fetus being any other species than human. As for how this relates to contraceptives and condoms, the whole point of both is to stop fertilization/conception… Neither of those kill a human after they are created (i.e. the reason that a sperm dying does not equate to a human dying is that it is a cell of the father. It contains no new genetic information).
Con still fails to completely differentiate between the actual life that deserves rights, and merely what constructs to be a person. Though seemingly callous, the low pregnancy rate, and the uncertainty before 13 weeks, corresponds to a potential situation where the Vegetative person has a low chance of actually becoming conscious (“only 10% of the 500 patients making a good recovery” for those in a coma). I have repeatedly noted that consciousness only happens way after 13 weeks (“Its physical substrate, the thalamocortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.”). 

What is “respond to stimuli at 8 weeks” (Con arg), even? You could argue that muscles alone can respond to an electrical stimulus. That argument falls apart. The actual pain is only after 20 weeks, both of which are only 1% of abortions. Even if Con can win this point, banning 1% of abortions is not winning this debate at all. 

Con makes a good point about my analogy, but he still cannot entirely penetrate through, because his point can co-exist with my point. From a Cambridge University article, an author states: “We began with three propositions: that people have a right not to be treated as mere means to the ends of others, that a woman who voluntarily becomes pregnant nevertheless has the right to an abortion, and that a woman who voluntarily gives birth does not have a right to abandon her child until she finds a substitute caretaker. These propositions initially seemed inconsistent, for the prohibition on treating others as mere means appeared to rule out the possibility of positive rights, thus making it impossible to countenance the right to abort or the right not to be abandoned (both of which, it was argued, are positive in the form).

But we have seen that the prohibition on treating people as mere means to the ends of others is best understood as ruling out basic positive rights while permitting derivative ones. Since a willing mother is responsible for bringing her child into the world in the first place, she cannot abandon it without violating its negative right not to be killed, and so such a child has a derivative positive right not to be abandoned. A pregnant woman, on the other hand, has a negative right not to have her body invaded, and from this negative right derives a positive right to abort her fetus, so long as doing so is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the threat (as it is not in the case of involuntary pregnancy, or of pregnancy which has become involuntary). Therefore, far from conflicting, propositions (1), (2), and (3)... in harmony with one another, the latter two being plausibly grounded in the first. Insofar as we have reason to accept (1), then, we have reason to accept (2) and (3). Moreover, we have seen that a proper understanding of (1) allows us to embed (2) and (3) in a larger moral perspective in which the limits of compulsory altruism are firmly drawn: enforceable rights to the use or assistance of others may be allowed into the moral domain only if they are “sponsored” by some negative right. Every putative positive right must find such a sponsor, or perish.
 
So my theoretical scenario still stands: you can’t treat the woman as a means to support the other woman merely through relation need or partial responsibility. The violation of the body for 9 months and the absurdity to take care of 18 years afterward is nonsensical, especially if the woman is poor and doesn’t have the finance to support for 18 years afterward. The thing is, the clump of cells alone cannot be considered a human being. And the further uncertainty of actual fertility vs stillbirth of baby is contributing to the lack of knowledge of whether or not the fetus is the same as a baby. Now, if she gladly went through the 9 months and suddenly thought the 18 years was too much, well… that’s just horrible planning within the 9 months, which is different from deciding before 9 months have passed.

Con has not even addressed the idea of just how detrimental this is on the woman. I have already previously mentioned the parasite/host or master/slave relation. He has not negated that it would be similar to forcing to draw blood between you and a relative. Countless diseases and problems are stemming from pregnancy, further enforcing the idea of the lost autonomy and control over one’s body. Some examples are anemia, UTI, depression, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Infections, HIV, “morning sickness”, I could go on and on. There are even lists of things you cannot do while pregnant. Even if blood draw alone wasn’t enough, adding all these problems could lead to far too much suffering imposed upon the relative. For someone to impose a parasite/slave like relation, in exchange for life, is absurd. Some people under threat of slavery have fought nail and tooth, sacrificing their lives in the process, in exchange for freedom. It's clear to see that EVEN if fetus was a baby, killing it to fight for the right of liberty and self-autonomy can be justified. We value liberties even more than lives; we believe it is better to die than to live under oppression. Con's argument doesn't stand, for both these reasons.

3. Impacts

While I can drop Con’s econ impacts, Con cannot drop MY economic impacts. Why? Because Con argument ignores the ideas of the future. My money is people’s money, which directly influences the quality of life. He forces women to give birth, thinking about the right to live, ignoring a lack of knowledge/preparation, and refuses to acknowledge the impact if you force women to give birth. Keep in mind that it costs more than $13,000 to give birth. Remember what I said about forcing women into poverty, which may increase the level of crime or suffering. 

A famous scholarly article supports this idea, noting: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1 percent a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction. The estimated coefficient on legalized abortion is larger in the latter period than it was in the initial dataset in almost all specifications. We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.”

Knowing con’s good research, he can probably find many articles refuting the idea of “unwanted”, however, he cannot find any that refute the idea of “unprepared”. The crime vs abortion becomes very clear when analyzing with regards to teen pregnancy, as another researcher says: “Women who began childbearing as teenagers were more likely to be convicted of a crime in young adulthood compared to women who delayed childbearing. When sisters were compared, the association between teenage childbirth and criminal convictions disappeared. Multivariate behavior genetic analyses suggest genetically and shared environmental account for the association.”

The relation of abortion to crime is not merely correlation -- it is causation. Another well-researched paper explains, that the “persistent poor parenting-role model account” combined with “diminished resources account” lead to increased crime among those young who have to bear children. This links back to the first argument as well. Think about it. If a woman knows she doesn’t have the resources, or the parenting experience/knowledge, then she can deny being a parent, while the child is still not yet born. To lead a child into poverty and crime raises eyebrows about Con’s stance on responsibility and ideals. It would be better to let her have the freedom to choose to have a child in her future when she is better equipped to give the child a well-deserved life.

All of the arguments above combine into a slippery slope that is all too well true--
  1. Women suffer during pregnancy, despite having unintended this result
  2. Women suffer afterward and mentally are unstable due to denied abortion
  3. Children also have worse lives due to raised in an unprepared environment

Global Warming/Overpopulation Problems

As for Con’s attempt to disprove the seeming lack of impact, the negative impact is not measured only in temperature, or merely in emissions. Some things are harder to measure, or affected by other statistics. A Havard site notes: “it’s clear that population numbers – especially in richer, developed countries – are critical. A 2017 study from Lund University in Sweden found that an individual having one fewer child in a developed country would reduce their carbon emissions over 7 times the level of several other “green” actions combined: including living car-free, avoiding airplane travel, buying green energy, and eating a plant-based diet.

Species loss and animal population declines show that high levels of the human population do not, as Smaje states, “lurk somewhere behind the numerous environmental crises of our age.” Instead, hiding in plain sight, human numbers expanding by an additional 80 million per year are destroying animal habitat to expand cropland, pastureland, and cities. The UN estimates that by 2050 we’ll have to increase food production 60% over 2009 levels to meet the demands of our swelling population. “

Remember that Con’s “stabilizing population” argument (“people have little impact on pollution”) only works if the world is kept as it is, with abortions allowed and relation to helping women save money on otherwise forced childbirth. The only reason we haven’t seen the big “carbon footprint” effect is where abortion is still banned, in developing countries. World population trend notes, “While virtually all future population growth will be in developing countries, the poorest of these countries will see the greatest percentage increase. As defined by the United Nations, these 48 countries have especially low incomes, high economic vulnerability, and poor human development indicators such as low life expectancy at birth, very low per capita income, and low levels of education. Of these countries, 33 are in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Burundi, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Zambia; 14 in Asia, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, and Yemen; and one in the Caribbean, Haiti. They are growing at 2.4 percent per year and are projected to reach at least 2 billion by 2050.”

This seems all fine and dandy until you realize that you are advocating for not developing the country. We still have to increase the quality of life for them, as living in disease and poverty is definitively worse when we can supply this. But as the developing countries grow in population and become the “developed country”, you have to find a way to help reduce the fertility or birth rates, otherwise, there is no way to provide for the people while taking care of the environment. 

Summary of Arg3
So Con’s world thinks that the countries should just stay as it is, in suffering, despite his admission that we are fixing developing countries and gradually pulling them out of their misery. Eventually, we are going to have to produce products for consumers, which means fewer consumers, the lighter the impact on the environment. 

Con’s ideals are exactly one of the crucial reasons that are preventing us from helping the poorer countries on a bigger scale. As it is impossible to force them to legalize abortion, we recognize that as their population grows exponentially, we cannot industrialize developing countries. It is much easier to do absolutely nothing than try to impose a law or encourage pollution to support people, without addressing the population problem. So developing countries are stuck developing with their policies as obstacles in the way, especially banning abortion.

Conclusion: Despite Con’s attempts to refute, his approach does not fit “One for All” (pun intended). Not all women can be prepared, not all are with bad intentions, especially with support from the previous round. Con's crux is:

“The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot.”

However, The suffering during pregnancy, and afterward, seems contradictory to con’s support, especially with unclear proof or certainty of actual humanity. I have thoroughly gained enough ground to completely defeat Con’s arguments.



Con
Thanks, Seldiora. 

R1-4 OBSERVATIONS:

  • RECALL & EXTEND: This goes without saying, but the voter should prioritize lives over economics.
  • RECALL & EXTEND that PRO continues to have BoP to prove that the fetus is certainly not a person. And if that BoP is not met, then CON wins instantaneously.
Abort73 furthers:

“Uncertainty as to whether a building is occupied does not give an exterminator the right to fumigate. Uncertainty as to whether an overturned bassinet is empty does not give a truck driver the right to plough through it. Uncertainty as to whether a walk-in freezer has been vacated does not give a night manager the right to lock and bolt it. Uncertainty as to whether a high climber has moved to another tree does not give a lumberjack the right to fell the timber. And uncertainty over whether a person is really dead does not give a mortician the right to light the furnace...The absence of human life must be completely verified before any of these actions can take place.”
 
PRO has made no effort to meet that BoP so far. Instead, they have simply continued to sidestep the responsibility. In fact, CON’s 1st Contention was completely dropped by PRO. By extension, the voter can freely RECALL & EXTEND CON’s 1st Contention and immediately grant CON the win.

REFUTATIONS:

“Firstly, I can drop all of Con’s original third argument (impacts). I am saying this here because this argument directly negates it. Why? Because Con’s economic impacts are “means to an end” which he does not desire. He is only talking about government gain of money [“contributed $14,574 to the world economy”]. No matter how much money the government can gain, if we violate the persons’ rights and personal liberties, people are suffering, and we cannot measure finance against this.”
  • “He is only talking about government gain of money” is a gross misrepresentation of CON’s 3rd Contention Subpoint B. The actual point has been repeated so many times CON is starting to think PRO is doing this intentionally. 
  • Aside from this, PRO can not “drop all of CON’s original third argument” and expect to win, because the Subpoint A of lives is ignored by his reasoning here. This is especially bad for PRO, as lives outweigh finances, liberties, and everything else of the sort. Indeed, life is a prerequisite to having liberty or finance. People understand this intuitively, as we are completely ok with sacrificing pieces of liberty for the greater good. (CON mostly sees the economic argument of abortion as secondary, so it is interesting that PRO chooses to drill only this side of the contention.)
  • Tying this into the liberty argument, impeding on liberty is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what is being impeded upon and why.
To recall CON’s R2 argument:

“My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre)...many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws). The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child”

“Otherwise, we could justify the government oppressing us all as slaves to the net massive financial benefit, not paying us, and merely giving us resources to live, a horrible dystopian future no one wants to live in.”
PRO continues their argument with a strawmanned version of CON’s 3rd Contention. This would only be true if CON had created a standard in which finances were to be weighed against all else. Clearly, this is not the case. 

RECALL & EXTEND: “This goes without saying, but the voter should prioritize lives over economics.”

CON will add that liberty should be prioritized over economics, but in the event that liberty harms others, the right to life outweighs. 
(Again, CON mostly sees the economic argument of abortion as secondary, so it is interesting that PRO chooses to drill only this side of the contention.)

“money could be funneled from the poor to the rich even more. Only those with businesses can provide services, and the extra child drains extra resources. The disparity growing contributes further to the poverty resulting from banning abortion.”
PRO seems to make an economic argument against abortion, that abortion keeps certain people from experiencing poverty.
  • Children cost resources, but they also contribute far more than they take from society. OUTWEIGH with CON’s 3rd Contention.
  • Once again, by having sex an implicit moral contract is made that if a child were to appear, the parents have a responsibility to either care for it, or give it to someone who can. 
RECALL & EXTEND: “when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. “

“Isn't it true, that there are born-children, today, who are growing up in poverty? Has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. On a practical level, there are more crisis pregnancy care centers in America today than there are abortion providers. They all function to help bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, place for adoption (which would relieve all future financial obligation). When help is needed, help can be found.”
 
“If Con's "potential of the fetus" argument works, then my logic can still stand, as a fetus sacrificed now compared to a fetus ten years later will still be netting one actual life saved, in exchange for one potential life filled with unnecessary suffering from parent and child.”
 
  • PRO brings up the already-refuted premise that CON is arguing “potential.”
“Once again, CON rejects the differentiation between people and Homo sapiens and says they are one in the same. In other words, the fetus never was not a person. CON also never argued that potential itself = personhood. That is nonsensical. Potential as a concept is abstract, therefore it cannot be a person itself. Lost potential helps justify the argument that the fetus is a person, but potential itself can not be a person.”
 
RECALL & EXTEND: “PRO misses the point. “Preventing people from being born” is killing someone who already exists… i.e. homicide.”
 
  • What an absurd proposition. PRO argues that it is moral to kill people as long as we replace them with others. 
Counter Arg: Additional Suffering From Above, Clarified…Consider that women denied abortion have worse lives, which also contributes to their children living worse lives. “Women who had given birth also reported increasing rates of chronic joint pain and headaches – 15 and 23 percent by end of the five-year study period – compared to women who had first-trimester abortions (12 and 18 percent) and second-trimester abortions (8 and 17 percent).”
 
  • PRO seems to argue that chronic pain from childbirth justifies killing children. 
  • Chronic pain can be attributed to many, many factors. But like with all ailments, the woman that gives birth but eats healthy and exercises will be better off than a woman with an abortion who does neither, and likewise.
Another article supports this idea (except in financial matters): “The inability to control the timing and circumstances of birth affect the children born. Women are much more likely to report poor maternal bonding, such as feeling trapped as a mother or resenting their baby, with the child born after abortion denial than with the next child born after receiving an abortion (9% vs 3%). “
 
  • PRO argues that being unwanted warrants death. 
RECALL & EXTEND Abort73:
“ If a child isn't wanted, they argue, then it shouldn't be born. The problem, of course, is that if the child is already conceived, the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it. How do they justify such violence? Often by arguing that it is better for the child to be dead than for the child to be unwanted.
This is a bogus argument. It doesn't work for the simple fact that no one makes such an argument about children after birth…
 
If someone's right to life truly were established or removed based simply on their "wantedness," what would that mean for the homeless, the aged or the infirm? In the broadest sense, the whole discussion of "wantedness" ignores a substantial reality. Even if the biological parents want nothing to do with their offspring, there are families all over the nation waiting desperately to adopt a baby, families who are willing to adopt diseased babies of any race or ethnicity."

  • A 9% vs 3% difference is tiny enough to where it backs up CON’s point that most mothers love their children.
“This may be a consequence of economic hardship and the circumstances that led the woman to want an abortion in the first place. Children born as the result of abortion denial are more likely to live below the federal poverty level (63% vs 55%), an average of 101% vs 132% of federal poverty level among children born subsequently to women who were able to receive an abortion.”
RECALL & EXTEND all responses.
 
“Not to mention my “potentially disabled children from incest” argument. Look, I’m not saying a specific race is better, or hair color, or any of the traits that all humans possess. But losing an arm is definitively detrimental to life, and being blind loses an entire sense. Or living under minimum wage compared to living in a middle-class environment. We can predict the disabled, especially in the theoretical scenario the incest couple gets pregnant. We can help poor children, in the case of developing countries, where the majority of abortions are prohibited. Then we can stop the potential suffering or lack of fulfilling life due to disease and deformities.”
  • PRO makes a fascist argument with a weak defense akin to “I’m not racist, but….”
  • RECALL & EXTEND all responses: 
“As you have admitted, life is a continuous process. If this is the case, why stop preventing the suffering at birth? Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?
 
Hopefully you will see CON’s point. Furthermore, who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living?”
 
What level of suffering is PRO willing to live with? Where does he draw the line? Creating a genetically perfect race through selective killing is exactly what the Nazis tried to do. This is no different.
 
Abort73 furthers:
 
“ There are children of all ages, and adults too, who are alive today and are living through all manner of disease and disability. Do these physical limitations make them less human? Is killing those who are sick really an acceptable way to treat sickness?
C. Everett Koop, who pioneered the field of pediatric surgery, points out that
"some of the most unhappy children have all of their physical and mental faculties, while some of the happiest youngsters have borne burdens which most of us would find very difficult to endure." 
 
2. Personhood vs human right
Con still fails to completely differentiate between the actual life that deserves rights, and merely what constructs to be a person.”
  • PRO once again ignores the core argument that humanity in of itself is enough to condemn the unjustified killing of a child.
  • RECALL that PRO has BoP to prove that a fetus definitely isn’t a person. CON does not have BoP to prove that it definitely is. PRO has not fulfilled their BoP, only saying CON does not prove the fetus definitely is a person.
“Though seemingly callous, the low pregnancy rate, and the uncertainty before 13 weeks, corresponds to a potential situation where the Vegetative person has a low chance of actually becoming conscious (“only 10% of the 500 patients making a good recovery” for those in a coma)”
  • But there ISN’T a low conception to successful pregnancy rate. PRO has not given any evidence that there is. 
  • And once again, if we’re dealing with a fetus that has been successful enough for us to detect there is a pregnancy and want to kill it, then it IS successful and VERY LIKELY TO BE BORN. 
  • Even if it weren’t, what is PRO’s point here? How the heck do you go from “some pregnancies fail” to “we are justified in stopping all pregnancies”?????
  • Lastly, despite the low recovery rate, we don’t go around unplugging life support before the patients are determined to be unsavable. PRO’s metaphor here is extremely off. 
“I have repeatedly noted that consciousness only happens way after 13 weeks (“Its physical substrate, the thalamocortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.”).”
  • RECALL CON’s previous debunking of this argument.
“If PRO thinks personhood begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not people” under PRO’s logic and can be freely killed with no moral repercussion.”

  • RECALL that PRO has BoP to prove that a fetus definitely isn’t a person. CON does not have BoP to prove that it definitely is. PRO has not fulfilled their BoP, only saying CON does not prove the fetus definitely is a person.
“What is “respond to stimuli at 8 weeks” (Con arg), even? You could argue that muscles alone can respond to an electrical stimulus. That argument falls apart. The actual pain is only after 20 weeks, both of which are only 1% of abortions.”
  • The respond to stimuli at 8 weeks argument is a pre-emptive argument against PRO. By PRO arguing it is a stupid metric of whether something is alive or not, PRO fully concedes this argument to CON.
  • RECALL: The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.” This stimuli includes pain. As for the professor, he said after 20 weeks the pain is “severe and excruciating.” This might just come down to semantic preference, but CON does not believe we can extrapolate this to mean nothing is felt prior to 20 weeks. It is not as if pain receptors are not present within the baby until 20 weeks exactly and then suddenly the pain is excruciating… No, it makes more sense for the pain to increase as the weeks go by. Either way, if we are to qualify our right to kill by how much pain is felt, then I am able to kill you as long as you are put under a strong sedative.”
“Even if Con can win this point, banning 1% of abortions is not winning this debate at all.”
False. 

“Notably, even if PRO could somehow prove that only 1% of abortions were unjust killings, it would still equate to a massive toll of 40,000,000 people dead by 2100 (meaning 500,000 people per year).”

“Con makes a good point about my analogy, but he still cannot entirely penetrate through, because his point can co-exist with my point. From a Cambridge University article, an author states…..A pregnant woman, on the other hand, has a negative right not to have her body invaded, and from this negative right derives a positive right to abort her fetus, so long as doing so is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the threat (as it is not in the case of involuntary pregnancy, or of pregnancy which has become involuntary).”
CON has already debunked the argument Cambridge makes. On many levels.
  • First, this is an argument from unwantedness. Something CON has already debunked numerous times.
  • Second, the “invasion” classification is bullshit. It labels a living child as something close to a parasite.
 RECALL:“when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. In the case of procreation, the child needs care. To fail to provide it is to allow harmful consequences to obtain. Since the agent is causally responsible for the existence of a child in need of care, then the agent is morally responsible to provide it. “

It is not an invasion, it is an invitation. You have incurred the known risk of child-creation as soon as you have sex. You’ve created a human who deserves protection from death. Once again, the right to life outweighs your right to not be pregnant. 
 
  • Even in PRO’s source, the source acknowledges that the vast majority of abortions, it is unjustified: “so long as doing so is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the threat (as it is not in the case of involuntary pregnancy, or of pregnancy which has become involuntary).”
“The violation of the body for 9 months and the absurdity to take care of 18 years afterward is nonsensical, especially if the woman is poor and doesn’t have the finance to support for 18 years afterward.”
  • Freely extend all responses against this analogy from last round
“The thing is, the clump of cells alone cannot be considered a human being.”

  • RECALL & EXTEND all responses to this “clump of cells” argument. 
“Because the Pro-Choice metrics of defining personhood are indistinct and immeasurable, the voter should prefer the objective Pro-Life standard: “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.”

Under this standard, the abortion debate is instantly settled. Upon conception, 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to create a new and unique genetic entity that drives its own growth and development independently. This means that the fetus is a human being at conception.
.....
Abort73 finds:
“By the eighth week of pregnancy, every organ is present and in place. The embryonic period is now over. Ninety percent of the structures found in an adult human being can be found in this tiny embryo (now called a fetus) which is only about an inch and a half long.”

Indeed, it is better to draw the line at killing a human being. If we did not, what else would be the metric we use to draw it?”

  • RECALL: “Notably, even if PRO could somehow prove that only 1% of abortions were unjust killings, it would still equate to a massive toll of 40,000,000 people dead by 2100 (meaning 500,000 people per year).”
  • RECALL that PRO has BoP to prove that a fetus definitely isn’t a person. CON does not have BoP to prove that it definitely is. PRO has not fulfilled their BoP, only saying CON does not prove the fetus definitely is a person.
“Con has not even addressed the idea of just how detrimental this is on the woman. I have already previously mentioned the parasite/host or master/slave relation. He has not negated that it would be similar to forcing to draw blood between you and a relative.”

  • Already negated
“Countless diseases and problems are stemming from pregnancy, further enforcing the idea of the lost autonomy and control over one’s body. Some examples are anemia, UTI, depression, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Infections, HIV, “morning sickness”, I could go on and on.”

  • OUTWEIGH with CON’s 3rd Contention. 
  • All of these are ailments that happen with or without pregnancy (even HIV, which is an STD). Most of which are very preventable and treatable.
  • Medical care is getting better so this problem will diminish over time. 
RECALL CON’s responses to the liberty argument. 

“Even if blood draw alone wasn’t enough, adding all these problems could lead to far too much suffering imposed upon the relative. For someone to impose a parasite/slave like relation, in exchange for life, is absurd. Some people under threat of slavery have fought nail and tooth, sacrificing their lives in the process, in exchange for freedom. It's clear to see that EVEN if fetus was a baby, killing it to fight for the right of liberty and self-autonomy can be justified. We value liberties even more than lives; we believe it is better to die than to live under oppression. Con's argument doesn't stand, for both these reasons.”

  • PRO says babies can be killed because some people feel restricted by their existence.
  • RECALL all of CON’s previous responses to this argument which stand completely unrefuted.
3. Impacts While I can drop Con’s econ impacts, Con cannot drop MY economic impacts.”

  • Already refuted
“Why? Because Con argument ignores the ideas of the future. My money is people’s money, which directly influences the quality of life. He forces women to give birth...Remember what I said about forcing women into poverty, which may increase the level of crime or suffering...A famous scholarly article supports this idea… crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s.””

  • “Forcing women to give birth” is a funny way of saying “keeping women from killing their children.”
  • RECALL all economic refutations CON gave. 
  • As for crime, this point is idiotic. 
CON does not dispute that unwanted children are more likely to grow up in adverse conditions. However, PRO unduly burdens the child with blame instead of the parent. PRO’s argument is that if you have bad parents, you do not deserve to live at all because you are more likely to be a criminal. However, this generalization obviously alienates all of the people that would have lived peacefully instead. CON argues that society should focus on promoting abstinence, preventive birth control, and improving conditions for children, and this problem will resolve itself.  

  • While CON does not support his racial views, Steve Sailer elaborates on the inconsistencies of this study quite well:
“What about just black male youths? Since their mothers were having abortions at three times the white rate, their murder rate should have fallen spectacularly from 1984 to 1993. Instead it grew an apocalyptic 5.1 times.

Why, then, is this generation born in 1975-1979 now committing relatively fewer crimes as it ages? It makes no sense to give the credit to abortion. Instead, it's the rise and fall of the crack cocaine epidemic that largely drove crime first up, then down.”

Furthermore, weirdly enough, a study credits cell phones as being one of the biggest drivers in lowering crime in the 90’s.

 “Lena Edlund, a Columbia University economist,  and Cecilia Machado, of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, lay out the data in a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. They estimate that the diffusion of phones could explain 19 to 29 percent of the decline in homicides seen from 1990 to 2000.”

“Knowing con’s good research, he can probably find many articles refuting the idea of “unwanted”, however, he cannot find any that refute the idea of “unprepared. ”

  • Already refuted on many levels.
RECALL: “CON does not dispute that unwanted children are more likely to grow up in adverse conditions. However, PRO unduly burdens the child with blame instead of the parent. PRO’s argument is that if you have bad parents, you do not deserve to live at all because you are more likely to be a criminal. However, this generalization obviously alienates all of the people that would have lived peacefully instead. CON argues that society should focus on promoting abstinence, preventive birth control, and improving conditions for children, and this problem will resolve itself.”

A Havard site notes: “it’s clear that population numbers – especially in richer, developed countries – are critical. A 2017 study from Lund University in Sweden found that an individual having one fewer child in a developed country would reduce their carbon emissions over 7 times the level of several other “green” actions combined: including living car-free, avoiding airplane travel, buying green energy, and eating a plant-based diet.”

  • This is a pretty big “duh” point. The absence of a person obviously reduces their emissions more than if they had existed, even if they were diligent in reducing them.
Still, PRO is bringing literally nothing new to the table. The full impact of a person existing is already accounted for in CON’s source

“Species loss and animal population declines show that high levels of the human population do not, as Smaje states, “lurk somewhere behind the numerous environmental crises of our age.” Instead, hiding in plain sight, human numbers expanding by an additional 80 million per year are destroying animal habitat to expand cropland, pastureland, and cities.”

  • PRO says the loss of animals means overpopulation is a problem worth taking action against. The judge should prioritize human lives over animal ones. In this case, there is a binary choice to be made between preventing the homicidal killing over 40 million people a year or having a loss of animal populations. The judge should always choose the former over the latter. 
  • PRO ignores that we could literally fit the entire human population in the US for the next 80-100 years or so. 
RECALL: “FightAging.org finds:

“..there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).”

  • Additionally, we are becoming more efficient at farming. Less and less land is required to make the same amount of food. In fact, the amount of land we use for farming has stayed constant
  • Even if the judge didn’t buy anything above, RECALL:
“According to Forbes, “demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”

“The UN estimates that by 2050 we’ll have to increase food production 60% over 2009 levels to meet the demands of our swelling population.”

  • First, there is a large window that ranges from 25-75% increase depending on many different factors. A much more recent analysis finds: 
“In an analysis published in BioScience, my coauthors and I offer a recalibrated vision of sustainable intensification. We conclude that food production does not need to double by 2050, which would require unprecedented growth, but instead needs to continue increasing at roughly historical rates.”

Thus, the world is on track to meet this demand. Additionally, with increased population comes increased productivity. Not to mention our efficiency is also increasing. We continue to be able to make food at higher and higher rates on the same amount of land. New technologies like GMO are helping with this as well. There is no reason to believe we are about to have a food crisis. 

  • Even if we were, RECALL:
“According to Forbes, “demographers estimate the world population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.”

“Remember that Con’s “stabilizing population” argument (“people have little impact on pollution”) only works if the world is kept as it is, with abortions allowed and relation to helping women save money on otherwise forced childbirth. The only reason we haven’t seen the big “carbon footprint” effect is where abortion is still banned, in developing countries.”

PRO’s argument is logically flawed. CON’s source showed that population has a small effect on global warming, and it showed several projections of populations far higher than projected and far lower than projected to illustrate this. The effect each individual person has on global warming would not change whether abortion were legal or not. 

“This seems all fine and dandy until you realize that you are advocating for not developing the country. We still have to increase the quality of life for them, as living in disease and poverty is definitively worse when we can supply this. But as the developing countries grow in population and become the “developed country”, you have to find a way to help reduce the fertility or birth rates, otherwise, there is no way to provide for the people while taking care of the environment.”

Uh, CON has not advocated such. 
Anyway, poverty is decreasing and countries are developing

The rest of PRO’s commentary in the round is moot.

CX:

Dropped. Extend

CONCLUSION:

PRO flails around throwing random new arguments left and right as his original arguments are dismantled around him. He pushes a fascist argument of dictating who deserves to live and who deserves to die based on their utility. His overpopulation argument falls flat, and he chooses to completely drop CON’s Contention 1. 

Once again, recalling CON’s conclusion from R1, it still holds strong:
 
“The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot.”
 
Back to you, Seldiora.











Round 5
Pro
I think we are just throwing around the same points at each other (5 rounds probably too much), so I will make conclusions based upon previous rounds and what points I believe are strongest to my argument and can be judged:

- Though cold and callous, the conscious argument means that Vegetative people have right to die, added to the fact that women having say over their body, so cannot be acted as life support to the fetus.
- Women who are forced to not abort will likely be unprepared and give a horrible living environment, compared to say, 10 years in the future. The difference of "not born now" and "born later" are very slim to none, and exchanging a suffering life for an enjoyable one works out, especially if con's argument about mere potential/possible future is correct.
- Though Con says my one source is not good enough for 92% unintended, he has not given an alternative number for support that most people didn't want it. Bringing in everything, the Rape idea works exceptionally well, as you are basically forcing *someone* to take care of the unwanted child, and still forcing the woman to suffer physical and mental pain, both through pregnancy and conception. 
- There is much evidence that the baby to take care of takes a lot of finance and time to support, which Con has not considered thoroughly. 
- Con's "impacts" with third term abortion are interesting, but he is saying it is better to live a horrible life and punish women for lack of knowledge or inability to support, than to euthanize the baby before it is born. The difference between third term and actual birth is that they are still on "life support" and still violating the woman's liberty.

Vote for pro. 
Con
As agreed, we are simply doing a conclusions round.

Citing last Conclusion:

"PRO flails around throwing random new arguments left and right as his original arguments are dismantled around him. He pushes a fascist argument of dictating who deserves to live and who deserves to die based on their utility. His overpopulation argument falls flat, and he chooses to completely drop CON’s Contention 1. 

Once again, recalling CON’s conclusion from R1, it still holds strong:
 
“The argument CON proposes is that personhood is a faulty standard for whether killing is justified, and instead CON argues the standard should be “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.” Even if none of this was bought by the voter, the Uncertainty Principle still dictates a CON ballot.”
 
The rounds speak for themselves. VOTE CON!