Abortions should be free, safe and available all through the US

We come now to the conclusion. Pro may not be aware of this since she is new to the site, but new arguments are typically not allowed or considered in the last round. The reason is because it creates an unfair advantage for the person who goes last. If I brought up new arguments in this last round, Pro will not have an opportunity to respond to them. So I won't be adding any new arguments to this round--only defending arguments already made. And we should not consider the new arguments that Pro made in her last round. Pro has essentially conceded the debate. It was Pro's burden in this debate to demonstrate that abortions should be free, safe, and available all through the US. Whether they should or not is contingent on when life begins, which Pro appears to agree with. But Pro flat out admits that she cannot demonstrate that life begins at birth rather than at some earlier time. She says it is a mere matter of opinion, and that no facts can prove it. That is as much as to admit that Pro cannot carry her burden of proof. I, on the other hand, gave arguments for why an individual human life begins at conception. Pro points out that I didn't provide any sources to substantiate my argument. But none of the premises of my argument were controversial. The fact that the unborn have a unique DNA distinct from their parents is uncontroversial and common knowledge. The fact that the unborn are human is uncontroversial. The fact that the unborn are living organisms is uncontroversial. None of my premises required sources because none of them were controversial. And, in fact, Pro did not dispute any of my premises. Nor did Pro offer any refutation of my argument. Pro appears not to understand my car analogy. The analogy was not to compare buying a car to having an abortion. Obviously, those are different things. Rather, the analogy was meant to address the question of whether the government ought to provide somebody with a product or service just because if the person doesn't get it for free, they might try to get it in some dangerous way. The car analogy shows that just because a person might resort to dangerous activity if they don't get what they want, it doesn't follow that the government ought to provide it for them. Pro concedes the debate once again toward the end of her conclusion when she admits that if the government provides for abortion, those abortions will have to be paid for by taxes. It was her burden to demonstrate that abortions ought to be free, but if they are paid for by taxes, then they are not free. She goes on to say that taxes also pay for other things she may not like. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion ought to be free. My argument has been that abortion CANNOT be free; therefore, it is not the case that it OUGHT to be free. That's one of my arguments, anyway. The other argument, of course, is that it ought not be free because it ought not be allowed, and it ought not be allowed because it's immoral. It does not appear that Pro has carried her burden of proof. She stated as a mere matter of her personal opinion that life begins at conception and gave no argument in favor of it. She admitted that she could not prove it and that it was merely her opinion. I gave an argument showing that life begins at conception using uncontroversial premises. Con did not deny any of my premises, nor dispute the reasoning I used to get from the premises to my conclusion that life begins at conception. This leaves Pro's case undefended. In the last round, I refuted all five of Pro's reasons for thinking abortion should be free, safe, and available all through the US. Pro only attempted to address one of my refutations--the one with the car analogy. But her response suffered from irrelevance, which I explained. With all of Pro's arguments refuted, and with Pro's premises unsubstantiated, I think it is safe that Pro has failed to carry her burden of proof in this debate. Thank you once more for coming to this morning's debate, and thanks to Pro for engaging with me on this subject and sticking it out until the end.