Abortion should be made illegal.

1. If Pro didn’t want his reasons challenged then he shouldn’t have agreed to a debate. I typically refrain from ad-hominem discussions during debates, but Pro's character is now relevant to this debate because Pro has made a factual assertion based on personal knowledge - Pro is a witness. Furthermore, Pro has attacked my character. Pro has opened the door to this issue, and I will address it. Pro's factual assertion from Round 4: "I have been experiencing technical difficulties for a while. Please excuse this previous round from voting." The conduct of the debaters is subject to voting. Failing to debate is typically frowned upon. So, Pro's reasons for failing are relevant. Pro asserts that his failure to debate should be excused because it was caused by "technical difficulties". All we have to evaluate Pro's assertion is his honesty. Pro’s assertion is not a reliable indicator of the facts because Pro has shown himself to be dishonest throughout the course of this debate. Examples of Pro's lies - Round 2: "it is more convenient to run over a dog or cat in the road than to go around it so you have the right to do so. That, most people would agree, is disgusting. Abortion is the same exact thing" Obviously, abortion is not the "same exact thing". The statement was false and Pro knew this when he made that statement. Round 4: "I am not arguing that abortion should be outlawed because SOME abortions are unsafe, I am arguing that it should be outlawed because ALMOST HALF are unsafe." Pro argued that abortion should be outlawed because some abortions are unsafe. "Some" is inclusive of "almost half". Pro's statement was false, and Pro probably knew this when he made his statement. Round 4: "As you can see, as abortion is unsafe, institutionalized murder, it should immediately be outlawed. That is what all of the factual and not supposed evidence points to." Obviously, not "all" of the facts and evidence point towards Pro's conclusion. It was a false statement and Pro knew this when he made the statement. I could list more examples, but the foregoing should suffice to demonstrate the point. Pro knowingly makes false statements. Pro is a liar. Pro's excuses should be responded to with skepticism, especially if they appear improbable. That is exactly what I did, and it was not rude or uncalled for to do so. 2. Pro seems to have misread “conclusory statements” as “conclusion statements.” Conclusory: “consisting of or relating to a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered” http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. Pro asserts that he cited his sources in round 1, but Pro’s sources aren’t cited in a manner where it is reasonably discernable as to which asserted fact corresponds to which source. This makes it unreasonably burdensome to check Pro’s facts and sources. Because of this, Pro’s sources don’t count. Look at Pro’s method of citing sources and his list of sources from round 1 to see for yourself. 4. It is reasonable to allow safe abortions to continue. Pro concedes that his safety argument throws the baby out with the bathwater. 5. Pro claims that it is impossible to prohibit only unsafe abortions. Without conceding anything, I offer another alternative - Prohibit all methods of abortion, except those which have been proven as safe. Legal induced abortion in the United States is safe. (See "Conclusion" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ) 6. "I mentioned that I have cited sources for the Chile study above. In addition, look at this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com...; This has no context. 7. "It is not an unsubstantiated statement to claim that women will not get illegal abortions. I have previously mentioned the Chile study. It shows that education, not abortion, decreases birth rates, as well as showing that women do not get illegal abortions nearly as much as abortion advocates claim women would." This is off topic. The topic is whether or not all abortions should be prohibited. 8. It was not my intention to throw all abortions into the same group, but as I have stated before it is impossible to police these abortions. Look at this article: http://healthandrights.ccnmtl.columbia.edu...... The article states how UNSAFE abortion accounts for 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, and up to 1/3 in some parts of the world. This only accounts for "unsafe" abortions- not for "safe" abortions meeting requirements but still resulting in death. I can't respond to this because I don't know what Pro is saying. 9. Pro's unstated premise is that if an organism meets the criteria for life then it is immoral to kill that organism. Bacteria meet all of those criteria. It's not immoral to kill the bacteria on your hands when you wash them after using the restroom. 10. Pro is probably arguing that comatose patients exhibit zero SISAC and that my logic dictates that it's therefore OK to kill them. No, this conclusion does not follow from my arguments. My arguments consider whether or not the organism in question has ever exhibited any degree of SISAC in the past. (See, e.g., round 1: "A human zygote, embryo, or fetus, while it may technically be a human, does not exhibit, and never has exhibited, any degree of SISAC.")