Total votes: 56
Full forfeit/concession
Full forfeit/concession
Full forfeit/concession
A deep topic hampered by a minuscule character limit. Pro asserts that a fetus is not yet a human, which Con agrees at first agrees with, though they argue that preventing it from being human is still as immoral as killing a human. However, Pro responds that the well-being of the mother should take precedent, and I buy this argument more. Con tries to backtrack and claim that life actually does begin at conception, but as this statement is not clearly sourced and contradicts their earlier arguments, I can't let it pass.
Pro's strongest point is their argument that criminalizing abortion does little to nothing to prevent it from happening, but legalizing it can prevent unnecessary deaths and decrease suffering, a common argument in favor of legalizing abortion. Con argues that regardless, it's immoral so it should be banned, but I don't really buy this. I can buy that something may be immoral, but if criminalizing it leads to worse outcomes than not, it should be allowed to remain legal. Con tries to refute the idea that criminalizing abortion is ineffective, but their arguments mainly come from inferences about how criminalization is meant to work, whereas Pro actually used reliable sources to argue that it is ineffective. Reliable sources outweigh inferences, so Pro wins on that pont. Con tries to argue in the last round that funding for abortion services detracts from funding for other services like adoption and maternal healthcare, but this is unsourced, and even if it is true, I feel like the impacts from Pro's argument about reduced mortality and overall suffering are greater.
In the end, I feel like Pro's arguments won out and had the greater impacts.
Full forfeiture