Abortion

I will offer two overviews and then proceed to address Pro's comments. Reasons to vote Pro will be offered at the end of the round. OVERVIEW: Pro, by accepting this debate, agreed to certain rules. To attempt to toss out those rules now is not only going back on one's word, but it is also poor conduct. OVERVIEW TWO: Pro basically drops all of my points--the only thing Pro does is repeat her own arguments without responding to any of my counterarguments to them. Repeating talking points is different from actually debating. ADDRESSING PRO's REMARKS: Having a "Burden of Proof" implies that it is your job to uphold your argument. So, the fact that Pro has the burden of proof means that it is primarily Pro's job to convince you of her stance. I am not asking her to prove her case definitively and beyond all doubt; merely, Pro must uphold the resolution against any counters that I might try to raise. In other words, Pro needed to outline a case, and then successfully defend it. This does not require "moral proofs," it merely requires making good arguments that are more persuasive then my own. Yet, Pro fails to even offer a case of her own. Thus, her argument here falls apart. Also keep in mind that this is the very first time Pro complains about proofs--she had two other chances to do this. It's as if Pro is struggling to make any arguments stick, and so each round she has to make completely new points and hopes that they work. She says she has complained about my stipulations, but her "complaints" were questions asking for clarifications, not outright objections. And then, when Pro did make objections, those objections were not about the burden of proof. It's as if Pro is only objecting when stipulations she made began to harm her own cases. It is not that hard to avoid a rebuttal, to affirm the resolution "on balance," and to make a persuasive case. It was not as if these stipulations were unreasonable. Pro just chose to ignore them, and is now objecting to them when I apply them. That's unfairly casting aside the rules. 1) Pro NEVER REBUTS the fact that SO-CALLED "NATURAL ABORTIONS" are NOT RELEVANT to this round! I will reiterate my earlier, un-rebutted points: "The definition of abortion is 'an intervention to remove the embryo or fetus from the womb, thus ending the pregnancy. An abortion necessarily implies that the fetus is unlikely to survive as a result of the procedure.' This definition was stipulated/agreed to by Pro when he accepted the round. Because abortion is an 'intervention,' it is not a natural process. This is further supported by the notion that the procedure itself is responsible for the fetus's death, not any natural occurrence." Because of this, ALL of Pro's "natural abortion" arguments are invalid and not germane/topical to this debate. Pro also FAILS to rebut the arguments about how a blastocyst as a FLO, and that the FLO itself is valuable and justifies keeping the blastocyst alive. Personhood is an irrelevant concept to FLO theory, because it is not being a person that matters, what matters is one's flow. So, to use Pro's own example, the acorn has a right to life because it has potential, not because it is an oak or will become one. An acorn is valuable even if it stayed an acorn for eternity. In regards to saving the life of the mother through abortion, Pro, yet again, DOES NOT REBUT the fact that by saving the mother, we save the more entrenched FLO--that of the mother. When two FLOs are in danger, we save the one that is currently being realized, but if both FLOs can be preserved, then we must preserve them. Thus, on balance, abortion is immoral, but in the rare case of saving the mother it is not logically inconsistent with my advocacy to abort. Furthermore, Pro claims, using Hume's arguments, that it becomes your personal taste to save the mother--yet the FLO argument shows this is wrong. There is a real reason to prefer her life when it is in conflict with the fetuses--the permanency of her FLO. Moreover, I stated: "the rules that Pro stipulated to in round one state 'Round Two will only be for cases (no rebuttals.)' This would also imply that Pro's [round two] rebuttal should not be evaluated." Pro NEVER rebuts this, meaning that you can ignore everything Pro had to say in round two, you can cleanly extend all my arguments, meaning that I have the only legitimate offense in the round and I have won. But, even if you don't buy this argument, I still have valid responses to Pro's rebuttals. Pro then talks about skin cells--unfortunately, none of these cells have FLO because they will not naturally have a future. They, as they are, are not organisms and will never be full-fledged ones. A leg has no FLO, but a human and a fetus do. Thus, Pro's points continue to ignore the thrust of my arguments. Pro closes by asking "when does a human being become a human being?" I would refer you to my contention two, in which I cited various medical arguments. These points were NEVER REBUTTED by Pro, and they show how medically, prolife positions are better because humans become humans sooner than we think, under any number of criteria. Moreover, it doesn't matter when a fetus becomes a human under FLO theory, because a fetus itself has a FLO that should be preserved. VOTING ISSUES: Please vote Con for the following reasons: (1) Pro never rebuts any of my arguments, she just regurgitates her old arguments (2) Pro was REQUIRED to offer a unique case of her own, and failed. All of her arguments were made in response to mine. (3) Pro's Round Two rebuttal was illicit, and should not be evaluated. (4) So-called "Natural Abortions" are extra-topical and should not be evaluated in this debate (5) Pro utterly fails to show any real logical inconsistencies in my cases: it is not illogical to save the mother, it is not illogical to exclude skin cells (which do not have the potential to become complete people), and it is not illogical to consider the value of a blastocyst (which could become a complete person.) (6) FLO theory shows that, on balance, a fetus or embryo should not be killed. (7) My Contention Two, which was NEVER rebutted by Pro, shows that fetuses and embryos become worthy of Pro's idea of "Personhood" very quickly. Thus, in most cases of abortion, it would be immoral to harm the fetus. Thus, my contention one and contention two are great reasons to vote Con, even if you only buy one of them, they are each sufficient to negate the resolution. I would just like to quickly thank Pro for an interesting round. I would also ask Pro to refrain from new arguments in the last round, as I will have no opportunity to respond to such arguments. Thanks! IN CONCLUSION: So, is abortion, on balance, moral? No. Pro fails to affirm the topic--with no case and nonexistent rebuttals Pro cannot show that her side of the case is better. I have clear offense and a logical line of argumentation that shows that, in general, abortion is immoral. Thus, I urge a Con ballot. Please vote CON! Thanks!