Abortion

He has lied, made up false quotes that were supposedly from my argument and has provided me with almost all of their arguments being assertions. I hope that voter's take all of this into consideration because some of the stuff that he has done is NOT acceptable in a debate. R5 RebuttalsIt is clear that con has skimmed and not read my entire argument. This is because con continues to say that reproduction doesn't count however I will now show why reproduction counts when determining life: - It was in my strongly sourced biological list used to determine life. - It was in con's definition of life. - This applies to groups of things and children belong to the group: humans and they still are classified as living. I'll restate something here that con fails to understand. These are the stages of being a human being: These are the stages at which somebody is considered human. Con should note that babies and pre-pubescent children are included here. Con should look at the other classification system that is NOT considered human: The outcome here is simple. The fetus and the human are different things since they have different stages of classification. I have constantly repreated this and he has completely ignored the logic, reasoning and sources that I have provided and resorted to bare assertion. Con attempts to show that abortions causes pain and provides a youtube video. There are a number of reasons why this fails. This was not a normal abortion - it was a late term abortion. The words "abortion" and "late term abortion" have very different meanings. An abortion is tehe termination of the fetus up to 24 weeks (in the UK) and 28 weeks (in the US) [1]. This person had an abortion at 7 1/2 months. That's around 32 weeks which may not seem like a lot more however in this period of time a lot of new changes happen which makes the scenario completely different from what we are debating here. Con believes that consciousness / sentience is a characteristic of the fetus. A specialized egg has no nervous system and hence no consciousness [2]. Con's assertion is therefore incorrect. It is also important to note that I got my information for this from a reliable medical website. Con's source, on the other hand, is from youtube. Con believes that I we cannot detect emotions. This is true but we can detect brain activity and certain brain activity demonstrates that the fetus has 'feelings' of some sort. The egg has no specialized nervous system in it's brain and it's brain is evidentally not completely developed, from scientists brain reports we have deduced that the fetus cannot feel emotions [2][3]. Con uses the same examples that have been constantly refuted. People that are on injected nutrition belong to the human race which we can decipher from their DNA, physical appearance and brain activity and complexity. The fetus has comparable DNA to humans (but not completely developed or the same). The fetus has little resemblance to a human being in terms of physical appearance. The fetus' brain is also not as developed as any living human being [4]. He drops independant respiration. Con states that he quoted the foundation of libertarianism and it's declaration of independance. By saying this alone, then they effectively drop my entire argument that I made and my previous rebuttals. I stated the main ideologies of libertarianism and why they should be considered above the requirements set by my opponent for this reason. This is dropped by Con. I find Con's critisism of quite funny. As somebody who has studied the politics of the UK in extreme depth I will try to correct your mistakes as best as I can. Right to bare arms: The right to bare arms isn't a right and it's a terrible idea. I don't want to get into too much depth however it is imporant to note that assaults are 7 times more likely to result in death if the aggressor posesses a firearm [5]. Free Speech: This isn't explained and is really easy to respond to. The UK follows the UDHR and in their laws they allow freedom of speech so long as it isn't discriminatory or racist and is used to provoke violence [6]. Privacy: This is broad and covers a lot of areas including freedom of the press, survailence, census frequency etc. Con hasn't been specific enough for me to respond. Taxes: We have a free NHS. We have free education. We have more jobs. We have higher wages. These taxes work out better for us than they do for you. You've also completely exaggeraed our taxes. Our basic rate divided income is at 10%. Basic rate savings income is 20%. Higher rate divided income is 32.5%. Our higher rate savings income is at 40%. Our additional rate divided income is 37.5%. Our additional rate savings income is at 45%. This is no where near as con has suggested. You should also note that he didn't source this whereas I have [7]. You are making absoloutely no sense. Please tell me in the comments (because there are no rounds left) what source you used to conclude your information because that statistic is worryingly far from the truth. He states that their framework is conservatism using that one word. Without an explanation (like mine), this makes no sense. It is not a framework. You have just used 1 word. Since my opponent has no explained his framework's significance and it's views on abortion this means that it is not suitable for the definition of a framework in debate and as a result you ought to vote Pro on the basis that con has failed to provide a framework. He attempts to justify they violation of the TOS by taking my words out of context and then putting them in quotation marks to make it look like they said this. As is evident, this is virtually impossible to justify. Yes, I said that women aren't getting their rights by being denied an abortion but I never mentioned a comparison to men and I never mentioned equal rights in this context. Con has also failed to justify putting this into quotation marks. I find it hilarious that con states that I should be voted against because of this. Con says that I am lying. If you can find evidence of me saying that the fetus is trespassing on the mother's body (other than when I deny con's claim that I said this), then you can vote Con. If you can't then you ought to vote Pro since con has lied (again). Con says that there are 1 million gay people wanting to adopt. Where are the sources? Oh wait, there are none. Con says that they were referring to the picture when they said that - they ignore the fact that they dropped the embryo argument which is the most signficant argument in the debate. Con makes a remark about communism in response to the BOP. I assume that means that they agree that the BOP is shared. Con says that he will punish illegal abortions. I said that most women die. He says that they will be put off. I say that they still do illegal abortions. Con says that he was talking about punishment. Do you see what is happening here? He is going arond in circles and not refuting my points. Con says that the fetus has committed no crime so it does not apply but fails to say why. It seems ironic that con says that one of his main philosophies is in regards to life and then says that life can be taken in certain circumstances. He doesn't explain why crime allows moral standards to be abandoned you ought to view it irrelevant. Arguments: He only has 1 which is refuted. He also drops my main argument. This goes to Pro. Conduct: He lies and makes false quotations. This goes to Pro. S&G - Tied Sources: He has used no sources up until the final round after I questioned him on it. He failed to source anything else throughout the entire debate where sources were necessary this goes to Pro. This is an objective vote for Pro. Sources [1] . http://bit.ly...;[2] . http://bit.ly...;[3] . http://bit.ly...[4] . http://bit.ly...[5] Guns in America: A Reader [6] . http://bit.ly...;[7] . http://bit.ly...;