The USFG Should Ban Abortion.

Observations OBV 1: There is something important I would like to note which is my opponent’s source dishonesty. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, I think what my opponent does is unacceptable and extremely unfair which I will briefly mention before making my counter rebuttals. I find it unacceptable that now, due to my opponent’s confusion with the sources I am unable to refute his point. If I made a claim with a source that provided no information on the topic at all, then I can’t refute the entire argument because there is a clear lack of evidence. There was no need for me to refute that point as if it was valid because the reality was that it was invalid. I shouldn’t have to refute in depth arguments that are bare assertions (which was what my opponent made it look like). I request that voters look at this carefully but I think that they should not view my rebuttal as a concession or anything comparable to it. I should not be penalized for having to check all of the sources. My opponent should be penalized for not checking his own sources. He should be checking his own arguments and not expect me to check them for him. OBV 2: Pro claims that the term anti-choicers is disrespectful however this is untrue. I do not like to call those that disagree with abortion pro life either for similar reasoning. I am for abortion but I am just as Pro life as my opponent is. Whilst calling my opponent anti-choice may seem bad, I think that it is clearly more disrespectful to call (or at least imply) that one side in this debate is pro life and the other is not than to say that one is against choice and one is for. As pro has expressed throughout the debate, the right to life is more important than other rights. Now that this has been said I’ll get onto my counter rebuttals. Framework Pro dismisses the entire argument presented in the framework as irrelevant since it is just a belief. However this is a massive mitigation of what the actual point of the framework was. The framework was the onset on which voters should be viewing the debate. Since they have not provided an onset with any explanation voters ought to by my framework and view his lack of rebuttal as a concession to the framework. Since I was the only debater to provide a framework (and say why abortion violates this framework),he loses by default. The lack of framework or rebuttal to my framework is problematic for my his case since under my framework (and the arguments presented with it) abortion is wrong and a violation of it. You ought to vote Con based on this premise alone due to the severity of the impact that the concession of it has on the debate. Living Human Pro still posts the wrong source for excretion however since they have informed me in R4 that the sources are in the wrong order (which makes things confusing for me), I will rearrange them myself and refute the argument as if my opponent posted the correct source - I’d like to stress the fact that this is something that I shouldn’t have to do, this was my opponent’s responsibility. What prot describes as ‘excretion’ is false. Excretion isn’t just waste disposal. Excretion is the result of a long process. Excretion does not equate to waste disposal. In vertebrates (like humans), waste disposal is carried out by the lungs, kidneys and skin [1]. Humans are vertebrates [2]. Ergo, the fetus has to get rid of waste using the process of excretion that all vertebrates do. If my opponent believes that fetal excretion should occur differently for the fetus than the human, then my opponent concedes to the premise that the fetus is not human. Since I only need to refute one point in order to disprove the fetus as living [3], this rebuttal is sufficient to refute my opponent’s entire argument made. Illegal Abortions Pro exaggerates the statistic here. It was never said that the statistic presented was specific to third world countries. It was said that it was specific to the world. Pro speaks of pre - Roe v Wade and how the statistics for illegal abortion related deaths were low. He does, however, fail to account for the many factors that have changed since 1972. Women's rights feminists have increased by approximately 400% since the early 1970s [4]. Statistics show that the majority of women in the US believe that abortion is a fundamental right. Logically, if more people are viewing abortions as rights for woman then the ratio of illegal abortions will increase and as a result the ratio of deaths will also increase (violating the framework because there will be more deaths). The undeniable fact that more people die from illegal abortions than legal ones is also one that he fails to refute. This violates the framework that we are forced to accept due to his concession. Pro fails to understand how libertarians value life. Life isn’t measured by percentages, life is measured by the amount rather than the percentage. If 100 million people died suddenly the percentage in terms of the world population would be small however that doesn’t mean that the deaths were in small quantity. Under libertarianism, regardless of how small the percentage is, they do not necessarily look at this, they look at the numbers and value the individual [5]. Again, my pro’s comparison between legal abortions and the deaths they caused pre - Roe v Wade is misleading. Studies conclude that there is no official number of illegal abortions in the US (contrary to my worldwide statistic), ergo negating pro’s argument in regards to success rate percentage comparisons. It is impossible to determine (in terms of percentages), how good abortions were compared to illegal abortions [6]. Something extremely important to note is that Pro does not refute a major point. If so many illegal abortions are occurring then there will be no major difference by making it illegal. Making it illegal will cause illegal abortions (as my opponent concedes) and therefore making abortion illegal will have no major difference to the current law as it is. Teen Health Pro states that my statistics are misleading but fails to explain why. There is no evident reason presented as to why voters should buy pro’s statistics over mine. It is true that the EITC pays $55,000 yearly however in comparison this is not a particularly large sum of money. This does pay for approximately 20% of the money needed however that still leaves the mother needing approximately $200,000 over the period of 18 years to pay for that child. Pro assumes that everybody will be using techniques to reduce the cost of their food. Can he guarantee that everybody is going to use these cost effective methods? Can he prove that 50% will? 20%? 10%? The answer is no. This is bare assertion. We cannot know how many people will do this and by assuming that everybody can just do this is very assertive. Adoption is not the option. 135,000 children are adopted per year [7]. There are approximately 1.2 million abortions performed per year [8]. There is clearly a larger demand for abortions than adoption. If only 135,000 people are open to adopt children per year then you cannot ban abortions and promote 1.2 million to put them all up for adoption. This clearly an unrealistic comparison. Women’s Rights He completely misunderstands the purpose of the contention. The purpose was to show that philosophically speaking abortions should be considered as rights and also it shows that the people with, arguably, the most say, agree that abortions are permissible. It is not a literal interpretation of equality. Men cannot have abortions however men do have the right over their body and women should be able to as well. Saying that it is not gender equality just because it isn’t literally the same then There is no framework contradiction as he falsely says. He fails to understand that libertarianism doesn’t like restriction but it prioritizes the rights of the individual as well. If the individual's rights are not being prioritized then it is better to put more restriction in order to keep individual equality, a key teaching under libertarian ideology [5]. Rape I dislike the fact that pro chooses to interlock contentions. Of course, the contention rests on whether or not the fetus is living. But we obviously disagree. Everybody has the right to mental happiness (hence why it is a universal human right). I have already negated the fact that the fetus is not living and it is not human. As a result, it does not have the right to life, whereas the mother does have the right to mental satisfaction. The abortion may not necessarily help the rape victim but they never willing consented to sexual intercourse and forcing them to have a pregnancy can have extremely detrimental effects. This is a massive restriction which violates the only debate framework that we have, libertarianism. Pro misunderstands collectivism and individualism. Individualism does not say that 1 life is preferable to 2 or more. It says that they are equal. They prioritize the worth of the individual and prioritize them. Collectivism prioritizes groups in society meaning that they view would be in agreement with individualism. They both agree that lots of people are the equivalent to one - just for different reasons. Conclusion Thank you Donald.Keller for an amazing debate. This has definitely been one of my favorite debates. I have refuted pro’s points and I have defended mine. This is an objective win for Con, the resolution is negated. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.saburchill.com... [3] http://bbc.in... [4] http://www.staresattheworld.com... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.grtl.org... [7] Jones, Jo. “Who Adopts? Characteristics of Women and Men Who Have Adopted Children.” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2009. [8] http://www.guttmacher.org...